Retrieve current valid extant species for a given family, deduplicated by TaxObjID and sorted by accepted name. Use it to reconcile taxonomic species lists.
List deterministic current valid extant species in a family, deduplicated by TaxObjID and sorted by accepted name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| family | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses deterministic output, deduplication by TaxObjID, and sorting by accepted name, which are real behavioral traits. However, it is silent on pagination (limit defaults to 10), case sensitivity of family names, and error behavior for unrecognized families, so meaningful gaps remain.
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 that states scope, dedup key, and ordering with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 no explanation, and the ordering/dedup notes pre-answer the main question about result shape. Still, for a tool whose only input parameter has zero schema documentation and no annotation coverage, the undocumented limit parameter and family-name format leave it only minimally complete.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only obliquely references the 'family' parameter and never mentions 'limit' at all. Neither the expected family-name format nor the page-size semantics of limit is documented anywhere.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('current valid extant species in a family'), plus the dedup key and sort order. It is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from resolve_taxon or search_taxa, though it never names a sibling to differentiate against, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_taxa, resolve_taxon, or distribution, nor any when-not condition or listed prerequisites. The family-level, extant-only scope hints at the use case but the agent must infer it entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.