lacewing-digital-library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

batch_resolve

Resolve multiple Neuropterida names against authoritative taxonomic data to reconcile phylogeny and taxon tables. Returns accepted names and optional type summaries.

Instructions

Resolve a batch of Neuropterida names for phylogeny/taxon-table reconciliation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "batch_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes
`include_type_summary`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'resolve' entails, whether any side effects or external calls occur, how failures are handled, or any rate/cost considerations. It only paraphrases the tool's basic action.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the purpose. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool has only two parameters, the description leaves include_type_summary unexplained and gives no guidance on expected behavior or alternatives. With no annotations and zero parameter coverage, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It vaguely covers 'names' by mentioning a batch of names, but it does not explain the expected format, size limits, or the meaning of include_type_summary. The boolean parameter is completely undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('a batch of Neuropterida names'), and a purpose ('for phylogeny/taxon-table reconciliation'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool resolve_taxon by emphasizing the batch aspect.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The stated purpose gives a clear context for when this tool would be useful, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over resolve_taxon or search_taxa, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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