Flatten literature sources supporting geographic records for a taxon. Retrieve distribution references by scientific name, with optional bibliography.
Flatten the LDL literature sources that support geographic records for a taxon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scientific_name | Yes | ||
| include_bibliography | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires credentials or rate limits, what the nesting/flattening implies for the response, or what gets returned, which is a significant gap with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the other gaps.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the description omits usage routing, the include_bibliography parameter's effect, and any clarification of 'flatten' or 'LDL', leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters. The description implies the taxon input (scientific_name) but says nothing about include_bibliography or what its boolean actually controls, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?
It states a verb ('flatten') and a resource ('LDL literature sources that support geographic records for a taxon'), so the general intent is discernible. However, 'LDL' is unexplained jargon and 'flatten' is ambiguous about what the output actually is, and it does not differentiate from close siblings like distribution, bibliography, or literature_distribution_seed.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as distribution, bibliography, literature_distribution_seed, and batch_literature_distribution_seed, the agent is left to guess when this tool is the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.