immich-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('currently authenticated user') and the types of data returned ('name, email, quota, role'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what annotations cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get the profile') and efficiently includes all necessary details (scope and data fields). There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It specifies what data is returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it does not mention the response format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential error cases, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information. It could be a 5 if it explicitly noted the lack of parameters, but this is not required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the profile') and resource ('currently authenticated user'), with explicit details about what information is retrieved ('name, email, quota, role'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'immich.people.get' or 'immich.people.list' by focusing on the authenticated user's own profile rather than other users or general people data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by specifying 'currently authenticated user', indicating this tool should be used when the agent needs the profile of the user who is logged in. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., for other users' profiles), which prevents a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.