search_speciesBusca espécies de peixes no acervo da iscabox pelo nome popular ou científico. Use quando o usuário mencionar um peixe para confirmar qual espécie é antes de responder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Quantos resultados (1-8, padrão 5). | |
| query | No | Nome do peixe. Ex: "tucunaré", "robalo". | |
| water | No | Filtra por tipo de água. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the search is a confirmation step, but it does not disclose additional behavior like return format, pagination, or matching behavior. The added value is modest but not absent.
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 two sentences with no filler. The main function is stated first, followed by a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.
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 simple search tool with all parameters documented, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states what is searched, the search criteria, and when to use it. The only notable gap is the lack of differentiation from the 'get_species' sibling, but this is not critical for basic invocation.
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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minor semantic context by indicating the query can be a popular or scientific name, but this largely overlaps with the schema's description of 'query'. No additional meaning is provided for 'limit' or 'water'.
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 verb 'Busca' (searches) and the resource 'espécies de peixes no acervo da iscabox', specifying it searches by popular or scientific name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_species', so the differentiation between them is unclear.
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 explicitly says to use this tool when the user mentions a fish to confirm which species before responding. This provides clear context for when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'get_species'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clear resource-action pair: search_* finds entities, get_* retrieves details, and build_tralha composes a full kit. The explicit cross-reference in get_lures_for_species and build_tralha prevents overlap with search_equipment.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_ for queries, get_ for details, and build_ for the one assembly action. The Portuguese term 'tralha' is domain-specific but does not break the pattern.
12 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each one earns its place across species, equipment, locations, techniques, conditions, and kit assembly. The count feels intentionally scoped for a fishing assistant without bloat.
The surface covers the full discovery-to-recommendation journey: search species/equipment/locations/techniques, get detailed information, check fishing conditions, and assemble a complete rig. Domain-specific needs like lure-to-species mapping and river routes are also covered, leaving no obvious dead ends.