Get the complete taxonomic classification (lineage) for a prokaryotic name or LPSN taxon URL, from domain down to the target taxon.
Get the complete taxonomic classification (lineage) for a prokaryotic name, from domain down to the target taxon. Walks up the parent chain on LPSN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_or_url | Yes | Either the full URL of a taxon page on LPSN or the scientific name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source and mechanism ('Walks up the parent chain on LPSN'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unresolved name, lookup cost, or result shape beyond the lineage span. Adequate for a low-risk read tool, but thin.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the scope detail. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to sketch the return value ('complete taxonomic classification... from domain down to the target taxon') and the data source. The notable gap is disambiguation from the similarly named sibling tools, which an agent needs in order to select correctly.
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% for the single parameter, which already documents that it accepts either a full LPSN taxon URL or a scientific name. The description adds only the 'prokaryotic name' constraint, which the schema does not state, so it is a marginal addition over the structured field.
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 and resource ('Get the complete taxonomic classification (lineage)') and bounds the scope ('from domain down to the target taxon', 'for a prokaryotic name'). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling get_classification_info or from get_taxon_detail, so an agent must still guess which one to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a sibling (get_classification_info) whose name is almost indistinguishable from this one. The only implicit cue is 'for a prokaryotic name', which limits scope but does not route between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.