Find the phylogenetic path between two taxa by tracing their route through the bacterial or archaeal taxonomy tree via their lowest common ancestor.
Get the phylogenetic tree path between two taxa. Shows the route through the taxonomy tree from one taxon to another via their lowest common ancestor (LCA).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_taxon | Yes | Ending taxon name | |
| from_taxon | Yes | Starting taxon name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses the conceptual return (the route via LCA), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether it is a pure read, or how the path is formatted/ordered. The verb 'Get' weakly implies read-only, but nothing is confirmed.
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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clarifying mechanism. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter read query with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete — it explains both the action and the conceptual result. Only the concrete output shape and ordering are left unstated, which is a minor gap.
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% (both params documented as 'Starting taxon name' and 'Ending taxon name'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces directionality with 'from one taxon to another' but adds no syntax, format, or naming conventions beyond what the schema already supplies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (get tree path between two taxa) and clarifies the mechanism — the route through the taxonomy tree via the lowest common ancestor. This is far more informative than a tautology, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with (e.g., get_children or get_taxonomy), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 when the tool applies — computing a relationship between two taxa rather than fetching one node — but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.