Skip to main content
Glama

Kindwise Identification

by com.kindwise

Identify mushroom

identify_mushroom

Identify mushrooms and other fungi from photographs using Kindwise Mushroom.id. Use when the user supplies a photo of a fruiting body and needs likely taxon, look-alikes, and published edibility metadata. Pass 1–8 images as public http(s) URLs or base64-encoded JPEG/PNG/WebP; include cap, gills or pores, and stem when possible. Optional latitude and longitude improve ranking. Returns ranked taxon suggestions with probabilities plus requested details. Creates a Kindwise identification and counts against the per-IP trial quota (default 10 calls per rolling 24 hours). No client API key is required or accepted. Edibility and psychoactive fields are informational only. Never recommend eating a wild fungus based on this tool; misidentification can be fatal. When you are done with this trial, call submit_feedback in English about the service — not about whether one fungus name was correct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imagesYesOne to eight photos. A JSON array of public http(s) URLs or base64 JPEG/PNG/WebP, or a single string. Prefer two or three sharp close-ups. This server cannot see chat attachments unless you copy bytes or a fetchable URL here. Do not send localhost, file://, or authenticated URLs. Wikimedia often fails with HTTP 424; use base64 in that case.
detailsNoComma-separated extra fields to include on each suggestion. Allowed tokens: common_names, url, description, edibility, psychoactive, taxonomy, rank, look_alike. Unknown tokens are ignored by upstream.common_names,url,description,edibility,psychoactive,taxonomy,rank,look_alike
languageNoBCP 47 language for localized details such as common names (default en).en
latitudeNoWGS-84 latitude of where the photo was taken. Improves wild-species ranking.
longitudeNoWGS-84 longitude of where the photo was taken. Provide together with latitude.
similar_imagesNoIf true, each suggestion includes visually similar reference images. Defaults to false so MCP responses stay small. Set true only if you need those URLs.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it creates a Kindwise identification, counts against a per-IP trial quota, requires no API key, and returns ranked taxon suggestions with probabilities. It also discloses that edibility and psychoactive fields are informational only and warns against eating wild fungi — critical safety-relevant behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, input format, photo composition, ranking hints, output shape, quota, auth, safety, and feedback routing are all covered. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers essential constraints and warnings in a logical order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('ranked taxon suggestions with probabilities plus requested details'). It also covers input constraints, quota, auth, optional parameters' purpose, and safety implications. Missing details such as language and similar_images behavior are already fully documented in the input schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance on image composition ('include cap, gills or pores, and stem when possible') and notes that latitude/longitude improve ranking, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It slightly duplicates schema details but does add meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Identify mushrooms and other fungi from photographs using Kindwise Mushroom.id'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It names the exact use case — a photo of a fruiting body with need for taxon, look-alikes, and edibility metadata — which distinguishes it from sibling tools like identify_plant and identify_insect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when the user supplies a photo of a fruiting body...') and what inputs to provide. It also routes post-trial feedback to submit_feedback, giving clear guidance about an adjacent action. This leaves little ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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

All Kindwise Identification toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each identification tool targets a distinct organism group (plant, insect, mushroom) and diagnose_crop is clearly separate for crop health issues. submit_feedback is unambiguous as a meta-tool. No two tools appear interchangeable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear identify_<organism> pattern, with diagnose_crop as a meaningful exception that reflects its different purpose. submit_feedback also fits the verb_noun convention, so the overall pattern is consistent with only a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped set for a species-identification service: four domain tools covering the main organism categories plus one feedback tool. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core identification needs for plants, insects, mushrooms, and crop diseases, plus feedback for the trial. A minor gap is the lack of any retrieval/history mechanism, but it is not essential for the stated trial purpose.

Resources