yellide

Count species

count_species

Read-only

How many species of India: documented, with an open record, threatened (IUCN CR, EN, VU), recorded in the last 10 years, endemic, and per IUCN category. All filters are optional and combine: "how many butterflies in India", "threatened birds in Kerala", "endemic frogs of the Western Ghats".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "count_species"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`iucn`	No	IUCN Red List categories: CR, EN, VU, NT, LC, DD, NE (not assessed), or "threatened" (CR, EN, VU).
`group`	No	A group of the list, or a word of it: "Birds", "butterflies", "mammals" (all mammal groups), "orchids". See yellide://groups.
`order`	No	An order (Latin): "Squamata", "Anura" (frogs), "Lepidoptera".
`state`	No	A state or union territory of India: "Karnataka". See yellide://states.
`family`	No	A family (Latin): "Elapidae", "Orchidaceae".
`region`	No	A WII biogeographic zone ("Western Ghats", "Himalaya", "North-East", "Islands"), a province ("Western Ghats: Mountains") or a province code ("5B"). See yellide://regions.
`endemic`	No	true: only species a source marks as endemic to India; false: only species not marked. Some groups have no marks yet (the answer names them).
`suborder`	No	For order Squamata: "snakes" (Serpentes) or "lizards" (Sauria).
`open_record`	No	true: species with an open record from India; false: species known only from checklists and papers.
`recorded_since`	No	Species with an open record placed in a state in this year or later.
`described_since`	No	Species described in this year or later.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and a counting query is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavior in the claim that all filters are optional and combine (AND semantics) and that results can be broken down per IUCN category, but it never clarifies the shape of the response (a single total vs. a breakdown) for an 11-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the count facets and followed by the combination rule and examples; no filler. The first sentence is dense to the point of being slightly hard to parse as a list of countable dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given eleven optional filters and no output schema, the description covers what can be counted and how filters compose, but leaves the return structure (totals, per-category breakdown, per-group breakdown) ambiguous. An agent can form a correct call but cannot confidently predict what the answer looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes combination semantics and example mappings from natural language to filter sets, but it does not explain interactions or precedence among the eleven filters beyond saying they combine.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (count) and resource (species of India) and enumerates the facets that can be counted: documented, open record, threatened, endemic, and per IUCN category. This makes it clearly an aggregation tool rather than a lookup, which implicitly separates it from find_species/get_species/list_species, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"All filters are optional and combine" plus three worked example queries ("how many butterflies in India", "threatened birds in Kerala", "endemic frogs of the Western Ghats") give concrete guidance on how to compose calls. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative such as list_species for retrieving the actual species rather than counts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All yellide tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.