taxonFetch a Catalogue of Life accepted taxon record by its COL taxon ID, returning the accepted concept with name, rank, and authorship. Pair with classification for lineage, children to descend the tree, or vernacular for common names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| dataset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "7XCCF"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Single taxon record",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the returned data (accepted concept with name, rank, authorship) and suggesting how to combine with related tools. No contradictions. It does not cover potential edge cases like missing IDs, but the annotations reduce the burden.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's action and resource, then efficiently guides usage with related tools. No redundant information or filler.
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?
The description covers the core function, return fields, and related operations, which is adequate given the output schema and annotations. However, the optional 'dataset' parameter is left undocumented, and the description does not cover potential edge cases or error behavior, leaving a small gap for a 2-parameter tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'id' parameter as the COL taxon ID, but does not mention the 'dataset' parameter at all. Thus it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool fetches a single accepted taxon record by COL taxon ID, with a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (Catalogue of Life accepted taxon record). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming classification, children, and vernacular as alternatives for related lookups.
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 tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Pair with classification for lineage, children to descend the tree, or vernacular for common names.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.