Find species records in the Lacewing Digital Library by genus, family, species, author, or year, with filters for valid and extant taxa.
Search LDL species records by common taxonomic fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| genus | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| family | No | ||
| species | No | ||
| valid_only | No | ||
| extant_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Search...' without stating whether the operation is read-only, how results are paged or limited, what the result set contains, or how filters combine. Basic search behavior is implied but not made explicit.
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, grammatically simple sentence that is easy to scan, with no filler. However, the description is too sparse; its brevity approaches under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
For a tool with eight parameters stan lisää output schema is present but the description says nothing about parameter interactions, defaults, valid formats, or filtering behavior. There are also no annotations to convey read-only status. The description leaves a new agent without enough context to call this correctly beyond a guess.
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%; the property titles and defaults provide minimal guidance bumps but no semantic definitions. The description's phrase 'common taxonomic fields' hints at genus/species/author/family but does not explain matching behavior, valid formats, or constraints. The tool description must compensate for the low schema coverage but only does so marginally.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource precisely ('LDL species records'), and names the search dimensions ('by common taxonomic fields'). It is clear that this tool performs broad record lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like resolve_taxon or taxon_record, but the word 'Search' already implies discovery rather than resolution or retrieval of a single record.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_taxon, taxon_record, or classification. It is only stated that the tool searches by 'common taxonomic fields', which implies but does not explain the intended use case. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.