Retrieve direct child taxa for a specified parent in the GTDB taxonomy, enabling you to browse the taxonomic hierarchy and identify immediate descendants.
Get the direct child taxa of a given taxon in the GTDB taxonomy. For example, children of 'Bacillales' include 'Bacillaceae', 'Staphylococcaceae', etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Parent taxon name (e.g., 'Bacillales', 'Enterobacteriaceae') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the one-level (direct) semantics and the shape of the result (child taxon names), but says nothing about read-only safety, case sensitivity of the name, empty results, or error behavior for an unknown taxon.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the example placed after it for illustration. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.
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?
For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and the form of the return values. Only the boundary behaviors (unknown taxon, non-matching name) remain unaddressed, which is minor for this tool class.
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 100% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's examples ('Bacillales') reinforce but add no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') + resource ('direct child taxa') + scope ('in the GTDB taxonomy'), with a concrete example naming real children of 'Bacillales'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_taxonomy, get_taxon_summary, and get_tree_path.
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 word 'direct child' implicitly scopes the request (one level, not the full subtree), which helps the agent choose it over deeper-traversal siblings. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.