Catalogueoflife

Search

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

"What is the scientific name of [animal/plant]" / "what family does [species] belong to" / "look up [organism] taxonomy" / "find [genus/family] in the tree of life" / "common name → Latin binomial" / "is [name] a real species" — AUTHORITATIVE taxonomic lookup for any species, genus, family, or higher taxon. Source: Catalogue of Life — the global consensus checklist of every known living organism (~2.1M accepted species names plus synonyms). Returns matching name-usages with scientific name, authorship, rank (kingdom→species), status (accepted | synonym | misapplied), and taxon ID for follow-up calls to taxon or classification. Filter by rank ("species" / "genus" / etc.) when narrowing.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rank`	No	e.g. "species", "genus", "family"
`limit`	No	1-1000 (default 25).
`query`	Yes	Free-text search (e.g. "Panthera leo").
`offset`	No
`status`	No	accepted \| synonym \| bare_name \| missapplied \| …
`dataset`	No	ChecklistBank dataset key (default "3LR" = COL latest release).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Result limit
`offset`	No	Result offset
`result`	No	Array of matching name usages

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 27, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "Panthera leo"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "query": "Canis",
+    "rank": "genus"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Search results for name-usage query",
+  "properties": {
+    "limit": {
+      "description": "Result limit",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "description": "Result offset",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Array of matching name usages",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "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/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (Catalogue of Life, ~2.1M species), what entities are covered, the meaning of `status` values, and that results include taxon IDs for follow-up calls. It does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but well-structured: it opens with representative query patterns, states the authority and source, lists return fields, and ends with a filter tip. Every sentence contributes value, though the length is slightly above minimal due to the example enumeration.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already documented, yet the description still clarifies the kind of results (name-usages with scientific name, authorship, rank, status, taxon ID). It covers the tool's scope, source reliability, filtering guidance, and follow-up tools, making it adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds usage nuance for `rank` ('filter by rank when narrowing') and echoes the query examples, but it does not meaningfully explain `offset` or `dataset` beyond the schema. No significant gap requiring compensation.

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 clearly states the tool performs authoritative taxonomic lookup for species/genus/family/higher taxa, with specific example queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning follow-up calls to `taxon` or `classification`, and its scope (Catalogue of Life checklist) differentiates it from `synonyms`, `vernacular`, and `name_match`.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (taxonomic lookups, common name to scientific name, verifying species existence) and how to narrow results using the `rank` filter. It names `taxon` and `classification` as follow-up tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of those alternatives or other siblings like `synonyms` or `vernacular`.

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.