lacewing-digital-library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

figures

Retrieve figure citations for a taxon using its scientific name. Get associated figures from the Lacewing Digital Library for taxonomic research.

Instructions

Get figure citations associated with a taxon.

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": {
      "scientific_name": "<scientific_name>"
    },
    "name": "figures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scientific_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation through 'Get', but does not mention side effects, rate limits, output shape, or any caveats. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 succinct sentence that is front-loaded and earns its place. No waste, concise yet informative.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description conveys the essential purpose but lacks context for choosing this over sibling tools. It also does not mention return details or usage notes, though the output schema may save some gap. Overall, mostly adequate but could be more helpful.

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 0%, so the description must give meaning to the parameter. It states that the scientific_name is the taxon's name via 'associate with a taxon', but does not specify format, validation, or edge cases. This adds moderate meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get figure citations associated with a taxon' names a specific verb (Get) and resource (figure citations), with a clear scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bibliography or taxonomic_references, but the unique 'figures' resource sets it apart.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bibliography or taxonomic_references. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or search context, leaving the agent to infer when 'figures' is appropriate.

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