Ebird

Recent Observations

recent_observations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recent bird sightings in a region. region_code is the eBird identifier — countries are 2-letter ("US", "GB"), states "US-CA", counties "US-CA-075", and birding hotspots use the "L" code from eBird (e.g., "L99381"). Optionally filter to one species.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "region_code": "US-CA"
    },
    "name": "recent_observations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`back`	No	Days back (1-30, default 14)
`max_results`	No	1-10000 (default 100)
`region_code`	Yes	eBird region code
`species_code`	No	Optional eBird species code (use find_species to look up)
`include_provisional`	No	Include unconfirmed observations (default false)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Number of observations returned
`region_code`	Yes	eBird region code used for the query
`observations`	Yes	List of bird observations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 24, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "region_code": "US-CA"
+  },
+  {
+    "back": 7,
+    "include_provisional": true,
+    "max_results": 50,
+    "region_code": "L99381",
+    "species_code": "norbob"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of observations returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "observations": {
+      "description": "List of bird observations",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "checklist_id": {
+            "description": "eBird checklist submission ID",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "common_name": {
+            "description": "Common name of the species",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "count": {
+            "description": "Number of birds observed",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "exotic_category": {
+            "description": "Exotic status category if applicable",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "latitude": {
+            "description": "Latitude of observation",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "location": {
+            "description": "Location name",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "location_id": {
+            "description": "eBird location identifier",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "longitude": {
+            "description": "Longitude of observation",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "observed_at": {
+            "description": "ISO datetime of observation",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "private_location": {
+            "description": "Whether location is private",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "reviewed": {
+            "description": "Whether observation was reviewed",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "scientific_name": {
+            "description": "Scientific name of the species",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "species_code": {
+            "description": "eBird species code",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "valid": {
+            "description": "Whether observation passed validation",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "region_code": {
+      "description": "eBird region code used for the query",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "region_code",
+    "count",
+    "observations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the safety profile clear. The description adds format details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a single paragraph efficiently. It covers essential details without unnecessary repetition.

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 tool has an output schema, the description focuses on input parameters and usage context. It explains the region code format thoroughly and notes optional filtering, making it fairly complete for its 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 significant value by explaining the region_code format with examples and mentioning species_code lookup via find_species. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns recent bird sightings in a region, with a specific verb and resource. It explains the region code format but does not differentiate from sibling tools like nearby_observations or recent_notable.

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 provides context on when to use (recent sightings by region) and explains region code format and optional species filter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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.