get_taxonLook up a single taxon in the Paleobiology Database: its taxonomic rank, attribution (author + year), first/last appearance intervals and ages (in millions of years, Ma), and number of subtaxa. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Taxon name to look up, e.g. "Tyrannosaurus rex". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Tyrannosaurus rex"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "Mammalia"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by disclosing the specific output fields (rank, attribution, first/last appearance, subtaxa) and the 'Keyless' note, which informs the agent about authentication and return content beyond what annotations convey.
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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the returned fields in a compact parenthetical enumeration. No redundant phrasing or fluff.
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?
With a simple one-parameter schema, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns (detailed taxon information). It also notes 'Keyless', covering operational context. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, which is well-documented in the schema with an example. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('look up') and clearly defines the resource ('a single taxon in the Paleobiology Database'). It lists the exact information returned (rank, attribution, appearance intervals/ages, subtaxon count), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_subtaxa or find_fossils.
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 provides clear context: it is for fetching details about a single taxon by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single taxon' scoping and the field list implicitly guide when to use it, and 'Keyless' indicates no authentication is needed.
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.
The tool set mixes general-purpose Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with only three paleontology-specific tools (find_fossils, get_taxon, list_subtaxa). Multiple similar 'ask_pipeworx' variants further blur distinctions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right tool without deep domain knowledge.
Tool names are mostly in snake_case and somewhat descriptive, but the naming conventions vary widely: imperative verbs (find_fossils), interrogative (suggest_questions), and nouns (recent_alerts). The presence of multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants with inconsistent suffixes (beta, grounded) adds confusion.
With 34 tools, the server is oversized for its claimed paleontology focus. The vast majority of tools are unrelated to Paleobiology, making the server feel more like a general-purpose data API than a specialized paleontology tool. A focused server should have a smaller, targeted set.
For the Paleobiology Database purpose, the coverage is severely lacking: only three tools are directly relevant (find_fossils, get_taxon, list_subtaxa). Missing essential operations like searching taxa by name, retrieving occurrences by location, or accessing collections data. The tool set is not a coherent interface for the domain.