common_ancestorFind the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of 2-10 taxa in the synthetic Tree of Life, by ott_id (from match_names). Returns the common-ancestor taxon (ott_id, name, rank). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ott_ids | Yes | OTT taxon ids to find the common ancestor of, e.g. [770315,417950]. 2-10 ids, from match_names. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it is 'keyless' (no API key needed) and specifies the return fields. This goes beyond annotations, though more detail on error handling or rate limits could be included.
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 brief (two sentences), front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.
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 has one simple parameter and rich annotations, the description covers input constraints, source, and output fields. It could mention the output schema more explicitly, but for a minimal tool it is adequate.
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 single parameter ott_ids is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context: range 2-10, example format, and source (from match_names). This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema's basic type and required status.
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's purpose: finding the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of 2-10 taxa using ott_ids. It specifies the resource (synthetic Tree of Life), the input source (from match_names), and output (ott_id, name, rank). This distinguishes it from siblings like match_names and taxon_info.
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 advises using ott_ids from match_names and limits input to 2-10 taxa. This implicitly guides when to use the tool, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions for cases where the common ancestor is not needed.
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.
Many tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping functionality with subtle differences, causing potential confusion. Overall, most tools are distinguishable.
Tool names use a mix of patterns: some follow verb_noun (validate_claim, resolve_entity), others are compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some are plain verbs (recall, forget). Inconsistent style and length reduce predictability.
At 34 tools, the count is on the high side for a typical server, but it might be manageable if the scope were broad. However, the server name 'Opentreeoflife' suggests a narrow biological focus, making the large count feel mismatched and excessive.
For a server named after a tree-of-life database, only three tools (match_names, common_ancestor, taxon_info) are relevant. Missing fundamental operations like listing children, searching taxa, or retrieving phylogenetic trees leaves the domain severely incomplete.