lacewing-digital-library

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

raw_public_endpoint

Access allowlisted Lacewing Digital Library endpoints directly. Provide an endpoint and optional payload to retrieve raw read-only taxonomic data.

Instructions

Advanced read-only access to an allowlisted LDL frontend endpoint.

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": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "raw_public_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	No
`endpoint`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly discloses two important behaviors: access is read-only and restricted to allowlisted endpoints. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not indicate error behavior, authorization requirements, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

The description is concise and puts the key qualifiers ('read-only', 'allowlisted') up front. However, 'advanced' adds little informationaine and the sentence is too terse to carry the semantic weight the tool needs.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is too thin to support correct use: it does not enumerate allowed endpoints, define payload expectations, or outline response and error behavior. For a generic raw access tool, this leaves critical operational information missing.

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%, and the description does not clarify the `endpoint` format or the relationship between `payload` and `endpoint`. An agent has no way to know which endpoint strings are valid or what payload values are expected.

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 states a specific action ('access to an allowlisted LDL frontend endpoint') and a clear safety scope ('read-only'). It is distinguishable from the named sibling tools, which target specific data categories, but 'advanced' and 'LDL frontend endpoint' remain somewhat vague without examples.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this raw endpoint instead of a sibling tool, what endpoint values are allowed, or how to route a request. 'Allowlisted' implies restrictions but the boundary is opaque to the agent.

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