get_treeAccess the complete family tree database for a specific UUID. Retrieve every individual along with their parent and partner relationships to understand the full structure.
Return the whole tree: every person with their parent and partner ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree | Yes | Stable tree UUID (preferred) or exact name, as shown by list_trees. |
| 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?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds the useful fact that the entire tree is returned in one shot, which signals potentially large responses, but it doesn't mention pagination, size limits, or whether removed/archived people are included. Some added context, but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the scope and the returned shape, no filler. 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, and the one required parameter is fully documented upstream. For a simple whole-tree read the description is nearly sufficient; only the omission of any size/scope caveat on large trees keeps it from a 5.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the UUID-or-exact-name convention and pointing at list_trees. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Return the whole tree') and clarifies the payload shape ('every person with their parent and partner ids'), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_person, get_ancestors and get_descendants. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'the whole tree' suggests using this when you need the full dataset rather than a subset, but the description never says when to prefer get_ancestors/get_descendants/find_people instead, nor warns about cost on large trees. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.