Ebird

List Subregions

list_subregions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Child regions of a parent. region_type is "country", "subnational1" (states/provinces), or "subnational2" (counties). parent_region_code uses eBird codes ("world", "US", "US-CA").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`region_type`	Yes	country \| subnational1 \| subnational2
`parent_region_code`	No	Parent region (default "world")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Number of subregions returned
`regions`	Yes	List of child regions
`region_type`	Yes	Region type requested (country, subnational1, subnational2)
`parent_region`	Yes	Parent region code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "region_type": "country"
+  },
+  {
+    "parent_region_code": "US",
+    "region_type": "subnational1"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of subregions returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "parent_region": {
+      "description": "Parent region code",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "region_type": {
+      "description": "Region type requested (country, subnational1, subnational2)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "regions": {
+      "description": "List of child regions",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "description": "Region code",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Region name",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "region_type",
+    "parent_region",
+    "count",
+    "regions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the hierarchical meaning of region types and code format, which is useful beyond the annotations, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. The added value justifies a score above baseline.

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?

The description is concise at three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the main function, the second explains region type meanings, and the third clarifies code format. No wasted words.

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?

Given the low parameter count, high schema coverage, presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers essential aspects. It explains the hierarchy and code format but does not mention default values for parent_region_code. Still, it is adequate for a tool with this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the region_type values (country, state/province, county) and specifying that parent_region_code uses eBird codes. This goes beyond the enum and optional flag, providing helpful semantic context for parameter selection.

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 returns child regions of a parent, specifying the hierarchy (country, subnational1, subnational2) and the use of eBird codes. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when listing subregions), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context for choosing this over siblings, leaving the agent with only implicit clues.

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

All Ebird tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.