taxonomy_gbif_searchSearch the GBIF taxonomic backbone by name, optionally filtered by rank, to identify matching organism taxa.
Search the GBIF taxonomic backbone by name, optionally filtered by rank.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rank | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
| 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 only the notion of a 'backbone' (an authoritative name-resolution source rather than raw occurrences), and says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or how matching/fuzzy name resolution works.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by precision — the size is appropriate but the content is thin for a 4-parameter search tool.
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 not be described, and the one required parameter is covered. Still missing are rank's accepted values and any mention of limit/offset semantics, which matter for an open-world search that can return many matches.
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 carries the burden but only covers two of four parameters: 'query' (a name) and 'rank'. The 'limit' and 'offset' pagination parameters are never mentioned, and valid rank values are not listed even though the field has no enum.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (GBIF taxonomic backbone) with the key filter (rank). Naming GBIF implicitly distinguishes it from taxonomy_ncbi_search, but it never explicitly contrasts the two sibling backbones, leaving the agent to infer which authority to pick.
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 guidance on when to use this versus taxonomy_ncbi_search, gbif_occurrence_search, or wikidata_alignment_search. The word 'optionally' hints that rank is not required but no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.