Catalogueoflife

Name Match

name_match

Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is [Panthera leo] a valid scientific name" / "exact match for [Latin binomial]" / "disambiguate homonyms" — exact scientific-name match returning 0 or 1 hit plus close alternatives. Use when you have a precise Latin name and want to confirm acceptance or distinguish homonyms (same name used for different organisms — pass authorship to disambiguate).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dataset`	No
`authorship`	No	Optional authorship to disambiguate homonyms.
`scientific_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`match`	No	Best matching name usage or null if no match
`alternatives`	No	Alternative matching name usages

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 27, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "scientific_name": "Panthera leo"
+  },
+  {
+    "authorship": "Linnaeus, 1758",
+    "scientific_name": "Canis lupus"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Exact name match result with alternatives",
+  "properties": {
+    "alternatives": {
+      "description": "Alternative matching name usages",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "match": {
+      "description": "Best matching name usage or null if no match",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete result contract ('0 or 1 hit plus close alternatives') and exact-match behavior, which go beyond the annotations and help set expectations. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with front-loaded example queries; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple lookup tool with an output schema and read/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, disambiguation, and return cardinality. The only material gap is the undocumented dataset parameter, but overall the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies scientific_name (exact Latin binomial) and authorship (disambiguation with homonyms), but the optional dataset parameter is never explained. This leaves a notable gap for a low-coverage schema.

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?

Description opens with concrete query formulations ('Is [Panthera leo] a valid scientific name') and states a specific function: exact scientific-name match returning 0 or 1 hit plus close alternatives. This clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like search or taxon by emphasizing exact matching and homonym disambiguation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when you have a precise Latin name and want to confirm acceptance or distinguish homonyms.' It also explains when to pass authorship to disambiguate. No explicit alternatives are named, but the use case is clearly bounded.

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

All Catalogueoflife tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.