match_namesResolve scientific (Latin binomial) names to Open Tree of Life taxon IDs (ott_id). The ott_id is the key needed by taxon_info and common_ancestor — start here. Returns the best match per name with its ott_id, accepted name, rank, and synonym/approximate flags. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | Scientific names to resolve, e.g. ["Quercus alba","Panthera leo"]. Max 20. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool is keyless and returns specific fields (best match, ott_id, accepted name, rank, synonym/approximate flags), providing behavioral context beyond 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 concise with three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then details the output, and ends with the keyless note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (ott_id, accepted name, rank, flags). It is complete for a lookup tool with one parameter and straightforward behavior.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'names'. The description adds a maximum of 20 names and provides examples, enriching the schema's description.
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 resolves scientific names to OTT IDs, a specific and actionable purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taxon_info and common_ancestor by noting that the ott_id is required for them.
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 advises users to 'start here', implying it is the entry point for taxonomic resolution. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context signals and sibling list provide sufficient 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.
Many tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping functionality with subtle differences, causing potential confusion. Overall, most tools are distinguishable.
Tool names use a mix of patterns: some follow verb_noun (validate_claim, resolve_entity), others are compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some are plain verbs (recall, forget). Inconsistent style and length reduce predictability.
At 34 tools, the count is on the high side for a typical server, but it might be manageable if the scope were broad. However, the server name 'Opentreeoflife' suggests a narrow biological focus, making the large count feel mismatched and excessive.
For a server named after a tree-of-life database, only three tools (match_names, common_ancestor, taxon_info) are relevant. Missing fundamental operations like listing children, searching taxa, or retrieving phylogenetic trees leaves the domain severely incomplete.