list_subtaxaList the direct child taxa (subtaxa) of a taxon from the Paleobiology Database, with each child's rank and number of its own subtaxa. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max subtaxa to return (default 30). | |
| taxon | Yes | Parent taxon name, e.g. "Tyrannosauridae". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "taxon": "Tyrannosauridae"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 50,
+ "taxon": "Dinosauria"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is well covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is 'Keyless' (suggesting no authentication barrier) and specifies what each returned child includes (rank and subtaxon count). No contradiction 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output. The second sentence 'Keyless' is a concise, useful behavioral note. No redundant phrasing or filler.
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?
For a simple list tool with rich annotations and fully described parameters, this description is largely complete. It covers output fields and access hints. A slightly lower score is warranted because it does not mention error behavior, pagination, or what happens when a taxon has no subtaxa, though these are not critical for basic invocation.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it simply refers to the parent taxon and output shape. The 'limit' parameter is already well described in the schema.
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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('direct child taxa (subtaxa) of a taxon') plus the included details (rank and number of its own subtaxa). This differentiates it from siblings like get_taxon, which presumably retrieves a single taxon's details.
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 states the exact scope ('direct child taxa') and source ('Paleobiology Database'), making the use case clear. It also notes 'Keyless' as an access hint. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_taxon or find_fossils, so it stops short of full exclusionary 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.
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.