taxonsFetch a GOV.UK taxonomy tree node by base_path (defaults to root "/"), returning the taxon's title, description, phase, links to child taxons, and associated content items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "base_path": "/education"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Taxonomy tree node from GOV.UK content API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds specific return fields and default behavior but does not go beyond what annotations already convey in terms of safety.
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 action and default, then lists return values. Every word 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 (one optional parameter, clear annotations, output schema present), the description is complete and covers all necessary aspects.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the parameter 'base_path' and its default value, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.
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 tool fetches a GOV.UK taxonomy tree node by base_path, with default to root, and lists the returned fields. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'content' or 'search'.
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 implies usage for fetching taxonomy nodes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.