Pedigree MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it generates visual output (PNG/SVG), follows a specific standard (Bennett 2008), and includes important constraints (e.g., siblings share parents, top_level usage rules). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or authentication needs, which would be beneficial for a tool with complex input.

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 description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with critical usage rules. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested dataset structure) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose, key behavioral rules, and output formats. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., base64 string for PNG, XML for SVG) or potential errors, which would enhance completeness for a generative tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, primarily emphasizing rules for 'mother/father' and 'top_level' usage. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context for other parameters, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generates a pedigree tree (Bennett 2008 standard) in PNG or SVG format.' It specifies the verb ('generates'), resource ('pedigree tree'), standard ('Bennett 2008'), and output formats ('PNG or SVG'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_pedigree_documentation', which likely provides documentation rather than generating visualizations.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'IMPORTANT: Use mother/father for ALL individuals with known parents - siblings share same parents. Only use top_level:true for founders with NO known parents.' It specifies when to use certain parameters (mother/father vs. top_level) and includes critical constraints, offering clear guidance on how to structure the dataset correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.