FigTreeKit-MCP

get_environment

Reports the FigTreeKit-MCP runtime environment, checking dependency versions, Java and figtree_patched.jar availability, workspace root, and allowed read-only roots.

Instructions

Report the FigTreeKit-MCP runtime environment.

Returns versions of figtreekit / biopython / python / the MCP SDK, Java and figtree_patched.jar availability, the workspace root, and the allowed read-only roots.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read-only operation ('Report', 'Returns') and discloses the scope of inspection (Java/jar availability, workspace root, allowed read-only roots), but never explicitly states that it is side-effect-free or what permissions it needs. Adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the returned fields. Slightly list-heavy but every element is relevant to deciding whether to call it.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with a defined output schema, the definition is essentially complete. The enumeration of return values partly duplicates the output schema, but the surrounding context (workspace root, read-only roots) is useful framing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Report the FigTreeKit-MCP runtime environment') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the tree-manipulation siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the diagnostic purpose is unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/environment-check tool useful before or when troubleshooting other calls. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites or of any alternative sibling (e.g. check_figtree, setup_figtree) that might also be relevant.

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