Retrieve detailed information about a specific species using its numeric GBIF taxonomy key.
Get detailed information about a specific species by its GBIF key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The GBIF unique identifier for a species (usageKey). This is a numeric key that uniquely identifies a taxon in the GBIF backbone taxonomy. Example: 5219404 (Panthera leo - African lion). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is fully covered and the bar is low. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations (no note on what the record contains, caching, or missing-key behavior), so it is merely adequate rather than enriching.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and input are all in one clause.
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 single-parameter read tool with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that it never characterizes what 'detailed information' comprises, which matters given how many sibling tools carve up species data.
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 coverage is 100%: the 'key' property is documented in rich detail (usageKey, backbone taxonomy, worked example 5219404 for Panthera leo). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific species') keyed by GBIF key. However, 'detailed information' is vague against a large sibling family (gbif_species_descriptions, gbif_species_media, gbif_species_metrics, gbif_species_synonyms, gbif_species_vernacular_names) that each return a specific slice; the description does not clarify that this returns the core species record as opposed to those specialized subsets.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. It gives the input form ('by its GBIF key') but nothing that helps an agent choose between this and the many other species tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.