FigTreeKit-MCP

set_clade_font

Set font name, style, and size for a clade's tip labels to control phylogenetic tree label appearance.

Instructions

Set font name/style/size for a clade's tip labels.

Args: fonts: [{"taxa": ["A"], "font_name": "Arial", "font_style": 1, "font_size": 14}]; font_style 0 plain / 1 bold / 2 italic / 3 bold-italic.

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": "set_clade_font"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fonts`	No
`run_name`	No
`tree_file`	No
`tree_content`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It documents the fonts value shape but says nothing about whether this mutates a persistent tree, what setup/run context is required, or what happens to existing label styling. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

Efficient single-sentence statement followed by a compact Args block with an inline example. Front-loads the purpose, and the font_style legend is useful, though the Args rendering is somewhat dense.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, three parameters and all behavioral context are missing. The description is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet only the fonts parameter is explained (with an example and the font_style enum mapping). The run_name, tree_file, and tree_content parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their mutual exclusivity and purpose ambiguous.

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 (Set) with a resource (font name/style/size) scoped to a clear target (a clade's tip labels). This is distinguishable from siblings like color_clade and style_tree, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description only says what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as color_clade or style_tree. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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