inaturalist_observation_searchSearch iNaturalist community observations by taxon name to find recorded sightings and occurrence data. Returns paged results, so you can browse many observations per species.
Search iNaturalist community observations by taxon name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| taxon_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are 'community' (crowd-sourced) observations, which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite page/per_page params.
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 efficient sentence with the key information front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.
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 needn't be explained, but the pagination parameters and the choice against sibling occurrence/taxonomy tools are essential gaps for a search tool with 0% schema coverage.
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 carry the burden, yet it only implies taxon_name's meaning and says nothing about page or per_page. Two of three parameters are left undocumented 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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (iNaturalist community observations) with the key filter (taxon name). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling gbif_occurrence_search or the taxonomy_* tools.
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 choose this over gbif_occurrence_search or the taxonomy lookup tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.