Retrieve LDL/NSW classification data for lacewings and Neuropterida, enabling researchers to query accepted taxonomic names and hierarchical relationships.
Return LDL/NSW classification data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must provide behavioral transparency itself. It only says 'Return' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose response contents, expected output format, potential side effects, or access considerations.
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 a single, efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant wording, though brevity comes at the cost of contextual detail.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves too much unexplained: what the classification data looks like, what LDL/NSW means, and when this endpoint should be called instead of siblings. For a zero-parameter endpoint, invocation is simple, but selection confidence is low.
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 has no parameters, so there is no parameter behavior to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to add parameter semantics and does not conflict with the empty schema.
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 states a clear action ('Return') and a specific resource ('LDL/NSW classification data'), but 'LDL/NSW' is opaque and the scope of 'classification data' is vague. It does not sufficiently distinguish this tool from related services like resolve_taxon or taxon_record.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus any sibling tool. The description gives no context about intended use, prerequisites, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.