get_root_nodeRetrieve the root phylogenetic node to access the ancestor of all organisms in PhyloPic's database; optionally include its primary image.
Get the root phylogenetic node (the ancestor of all organisms in PhyloPic's database). This is the top of the tree of life. Can optionally embed the primary image data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| embed_primaryImage | No | Whether to embed the primary image data in the response. |
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 one meaningful behavioral trait — that primary image data can optionally be embedded — but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, response shape, or whether the root node is stable/cached.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and zero wasted words. The middle sentence about the tree of life is lightly redundant with the parenthetical but serves as useful conceptual grounding.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns conceptually and the one option. Only minor gaps remain, such as what identifiers the returned node carries.
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, so the schema already explains embed_primaryImage fully. The description merely restates that the image data is optional, adding no syntax or format detail. 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 the root phylogenetic node) and clarifies the domain concept with a parenthetical definition. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_node or get_node_lineage, which an agent must choose between.
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 this is useful ('This is the top of the tree of life'), but never says explicitly when to prefer it over get_node/get_node_lineage or when it should be avoided on large queries. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.