children"What species are in [genus]" / "all members of [family]" / "species under [order]" / "direct descendants of [taxon]" — list immediate child taxa under a Catalogue of Life parent taxon. Use to walk down the tree of life one rank at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | 1-1000 (default 100). | |
| dataset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Result limit | |
| offset | No | Result offset | |
| result | No | Array of child taxa |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "7XCCF"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "7XCCF",
+ "limit": 200
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Direct child taxa with pagination",
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "Result limit",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "description": "Result offset",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "description": "Array of child taxa",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds key behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying that only immediate children are returned ('immediate child taxa' and 'walk down one rank at a time'), which prevents mistaken expectations of recursive results. It also specifies the Catalogue of Life data source. No contradiction with annotations, which already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation.
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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with example queries that immediately convey the tool's function, then gives a precise definition. Both sentences earn their place with no filler, and the structure helps an agent quickly grasp the tool's purpose.
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 read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the key behavioral nuance (immediate children). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these are less critical given the simplicity and availability of the output schema.
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?
The schema only documents 'limit' (1-1000, default 100), leaving 'id' and 'dataset' unexplained. The description implies 'id' is a taxon identifier via context ('parent taxon' and examples), but it does not explicitly describe the 'dataset' parameter or its possible values. This is a moderate gap given the low schema description coverage, though the purpose of the tool makes 'id' fairly obvious.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists immediate child taxa under a Catalogue of Life parent taxon, using specific verb+resource+scope. It also provides example queries and distinguishes itself as the tool for walking down the taxonomic tree one rank at a time, making it distinct from siblings like taxon, classification, or synonyms.
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 'Use to walk down the tree of life one rank at a time,' which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the examples and definition make the intended use obvious, and sibling tool names provide implicit contrasts.
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.