find_speciesSearch the eBird taxonomy by common or scientific name. Returns the eBird species code needed by the observation tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Common or scientific name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of species results | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| species | Yes | List of matching species |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Great Blue Heron"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "Ardea herodias"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of species results",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "description": "Search query string",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "species": {
+ "description": "List of matching species",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Species common or scientific name",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "species_code": {
+ "description": "eBird species code",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "query",
+ "count",
+ "species"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying the output (species code) and its role, complementing annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with action and output. Perfectly concise for a simple lookup tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. Could briefly mention that it returns exact matches, but the purpose is clear.
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 already covers the single 'query' parameter with description 'Common or scientific name'. Description adds no additional context (e.g., case sensitivity, partial match behavior), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'search' and resource 'eBird taxonomy', specifies input types (common or scientific name), and explains output purpose (species code for observation tools), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle observations.
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?
Description implies use when needing an eBird species code for observation tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. Adequate but minimal.
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.