digeguigui

search_by_traits

Find reptile and exotic pet species matching your care requirements. Filter by difficulty, size, temperature, diet, and more.

Instructions

🔍 按饲养条件反查品种 — 如"新手友好+小型+水栖+25°C以下"

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": "search_by_traits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`difficulty`	No	饲养难度 1-5 (1=新手) 上限
`temp_min`	No	最低耐受温度°C
`temp_max`	No	最高耐受温度°C
`adult_size_cm`	No	成体最大尺寸cm
`lifespan_years`	No	最小寿命年
`category`	No	品类: 龟/蛇/蜥蜴/蛙/守宫
`diet`	No	食性关键词: 肉食/杂食/草食/昆虫
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states the general search functionality without disclosing behavioral traits such as result format, pagination, filtering logic (AND/OR), or authentication requirements. For a search tool, these details are important.

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?

The description is a single sentence with an example, concise and front-loaded. Every part is essential and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain search semantics (e.g., how parameters are combined), result structure, or limitations. Missing context for an agent to use it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 description coverage is high (88%). The description adds an example of combining parameters, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what each parameter's schema description already conveys. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: searching species by breeding conditions like 'beginner-friendly, small, aquatic, below 25°C'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_species (name-based) and get_species_profile (by ID).

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?

The description implies use when querying by multiple conditions, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server