lacewing-digital-library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

identification_keys

Retrieve identification-key terminals for any taxon by scientific name, enabling quick access to taxonomic keys for specimen identification.

Instructions

Get identification-key terminals 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": "identification_keys"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' indicates a read operation, but the description does not disclose matching behavior, pagination/limits, or what happens when no terminals exist; it adds little beyond the tool's name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity leaves behavioral and parameter details under-specified.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description conveys the core task and required input. However, absent annotations and schema descriptions, it lacks enough supporting detail to fully ensure correct invocation in edge cases such as invalid names, no matches, or exact vs fuzzy matching.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that scientific_name identifies the taxon whose terminals are returned, but it does not add format requirements (e.g., canonical name vs synonym), which matters for correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('identification-key terminals') with the association context ('associated with a taxon'). The tool's niche is clear relative to broader siblings like search_taxa or taxon_record, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 phrasing 'associated with a taxon' implies it should be used when a consumer needs the identification-key terminals for a given scientific name. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is reasonably inferable.

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