yellide

List species

list_species

Read-only

List species of India with optional filters that combine: "critically endangered species in India", "endangered animals in Karnataka", "snakes of the Western Ghats", "birds of Goa recorded since 2020". Rows by group, then Latin name; up to 100 per page, with the total and a cursor for the next page.

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": "list_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.
`limit`	No	Rows per page, 1 to 100 (default 50).
`order`	No	An order (Latin): "Squamata", "Anura" (frogs), "Lepidoptera".
`state`	No	A state or union territory of India: "Karnataka". See yellide://states.
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the previous page.
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral facts: result ordering by group then Latin name, a 100-row page ceiling, and that the response carries a total plus a next-page cursor — details absent from annotations and schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a compact set of illustrative queries, then pagination behavior in one sentence. There is no filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 13-parameter, filter-heavy tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, page size, total, and cursor well. The remaining gap is row shape — it never says which fields each species row contains — which the absent output schema leaves undescribed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value the schema does not state: that these filters are combined AND-style rather than alternatives, which materially changes how an agent builds a query. It stops short of explaining filter interaction edge cases.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, "List species of India," and immediately scopes it with "optional filters that combine," which pins down the tool's behavior far better than the tautological title. It does not explicitly name the alternative lookup tools, but the combination-filter plus paging framing gives the agent enough to separate it from a single-record lookup.

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?

Four quoted example queries ("critically endangered species in India," "endangered animals in Karnataka," "snakes of the Western Ghats," "birds of Goa recorded since 2020") demonstrate the intended use and, crucially, that filters compose. The description never states when not to use it or which sibling to pick for a name lookup, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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.