search_taxaSearch ITIS (authoritative US-government integrated taxonomy for plants, animals, fungi, and microbes) by scientific name and resolve it to TSNs (Taxonomic Serial Numbers). Returns matching taxa with tsn, scientific name, author, and kingdom. Keyless. Use the tsn with get_hierarchy or get_common_names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Scientific name to search, e.g. "Puma concolor". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Puma concolor"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "Canis lupus"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds that the tool is keyless and returns specific fields (tsn, author, kingdom). No contradictions with annotations.
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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, followed by return fields and usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 simple single-parameter tool, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result with other tools.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description repeats the parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic detail. The example in the schema already illustrates usage, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 searches ITIS by scientific name and resolves to TSNs, listing return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hierarchy and get_common_names by suggesting their use after retrieval.
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 notes the tool is keyless and suggests using the result with get_hierarchy or get_common_names. However, it does not specify when not to use it or alternatives for non-taxonomic queries.
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.