get_classificationWalk the full taxonomic lineage (root → tip) for a WoRMS AphiaID: returns a flat ordered array of { rank, name, aphia_id } from superdomain down to the taxon itself. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aphia_id | Yes | WoRMS AphiaID, e.g. 137102. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying the ordered output array from root to tip with fields {rank, name, aphia_id}. The term 'Keyless' is somewhat ambiguous but still informative.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action and output. The second sentence 'Keyless' is terse but may be unclear; slightly more explanation could help.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, how the result is structured, and the ordering. No gaps.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the parameter 'aphia_id' with type and example. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('walk the full taxonomic lineage') and the specific resource (WoRMS AphiaID), with details on the output format. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'get_common_names' or 'search_species.'
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'resolve_entity' or other lineage tools. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Several tools have functionally overlapping purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, which currently behave identically. The many prediction-market tools are each distinct but still leave boundaries that require careful reading, and the query/research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, potentially validate_claim) have an ease of being confused. Fine verbal descriptions reduce but do not eliminate the ambiguity for an agent.
All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, such as resolve_entity, get_classification, and list_subscriptions. However, the set is inconsistent overall: it mixes single verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and several prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). It's readable but not a coherent, uniformly applied convention throughout.
34 tools in one server is well beyond the generally well-scoped 3–15 range. The server appears to bundle several unrelated domains together—WoRMS taxonomy, Pipeworx data research, Polymarket analysis, memory utilities, and subscriptions—creating avoidable cognitive load and making selection more difficult. Splitting into targeted servers would greatly improve the interface.
The server is named 'Worms' and includes a WoRMS taxonomy subdomain, but that subdomain only supports searching, classification, and common names—the rest of the marine taxonomy surface is missing (e.g., direct AphiaID record lookup, distributions, synonyms, hierarchical children). The remainder of the tools serve an entirely different data-research purpose, so the server is incomplete relative to its name AND the bundled extra domains add confusion rather than a coherent cohesive coverage.