Search taxonomic history by scientific name to retrieve current accepted name, original combination, and historical combinations. Resolve name changes and synonyms.
Return current name, original combination, and matching historical combination rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scientific_name | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned and omits whether the operation is read-only, any error conditions, or rate limits. Minimal disclosure leaves the agent unaware of side effects or constraints.
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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core action, though the brevity sacrifices depth.
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?
Although an output schema exists (which may cover return format), the description does not explain how the input parameter is used or any caveats. For a tool with one parameter, it should at least mention that scientific_name is the query key. The description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.
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 only parameter, scientific_name, is not explained in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides zero meaning beyond the parameter's name. It fails to clarify expected format (e.g., full binomial, case sensitivity) or how it is used in matching.
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 resource ('current name, original combination, and matching historical combination rows'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like taxon_record or resolve_taxon. The focus on historical combinations implies a distinct purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where a user would need name history over a simpler taxon lookup, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.