get_api_infoCheck PhyloPic API status and discover available endpoints. Retrieve current build number and API version to verify connectivity before making taxonomic or image requests.
Get general information about the PhyloPic API, including the current build number, API version, and available resource endpoints. Useful for checking API status and discovering available endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It discloses the kinds of information returned and that the tool is for status/discovery, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, describe the response shape, or mention any auth/rate-limit behavior. For a zero-parameter informational getter this is adequate but not complete.
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?
The definition is two tight sentences, front-loading what the tool returns before giving its intended use. Every sentence adds relevant information without repetition.
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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and why to call it. It does both by listing build number, API version, and endpoints, though it could more explicitly state that the call has no side effects.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not introduce parameter details that would be irrelevant.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get general information about the PhyloPic API') and enumerates the returned fields (build number, API version, resource endpoints). It clearly distinguishes this metadata tool from the sibling data-retrieval tools such as search_taxa or get_image.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: checking API status and discovering available endpoints. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like ping, but the implied scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.