get_contributorRetrieve a PhyloPic contributor's name, total image count, creation date, and contact information using their UUID.
Get detailed information about a specific PhyloPic contributor by their UUID. Returns the contributor's name, total image count, creation date, and contact information if available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | The UUID of the contributor (e.g. '060f03a9-fafd-4d08-81d1-b8f82080573f'). |
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 usefully discloses the return fields (name, image count, creation date, contact info if available), which is genuine value with no output schema present, but it omits read-only confirmation, auth/permission needs, and error behavior for invalid UUIDs.
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 the retrieval scope front-loaded and the return contents following. No filler; slightly under-uses the space that could clarify sibling routing.
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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essence and, importantly, summarizes the return payload. Only missing explicit sibling routing and read-only confirmation keeps it from being complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the uuid parameter (including format, pattern, and an example) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by their UUID' and adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 detailed information about a specific PhyloPic contributor by their UUID'), which is clear. The singular 'contributor' implicitly contrasts with the 'list_contributors' sibling, but no explicit differentiation is offered.
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 use case (fetch one contributor by UUID) is implied but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative list_contributors for enumerating many. Usage must be inferred from the singular phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.