Skip to main content
Glama

exporteer_bevraging

Export area-based species observations to CSV or JSON with metadata, optionally including all records, to generate data reports.

Instructions

Schrijf een volledige gebiedsbevraging weg als CSV of JSON (alle soorten, optioneel alle records), met metadata.

Bestemd voor datarapporten: pad eindigt op .csv (soortentabel; met met_records=True komt er een tweede bestand _records.csv) of .json (alles in één bestand, incl. metadata: geraadpleegd_op, gebied, GBIF-parameters, lijstversies, datasets, legende). Zelfde filters als soorten_in_gebied.

De soortentabel bevat altijd de uitsplitsing per brondataset: in CSV als de kolommen datasets (compacte notatie 'wnm.be-gewervelden 5 / eBird 2') en n_datasets, in JSON als de volledige lijst datasets per soort. De brondataset zegt iets over de herkomst van de determinatie, niet over de validatiestatus van het record.

Args: pad: doelbestand (.csv of .json), absoluut of relatief aan de werkmap van de server. met_records: ook alle individuele GBIF-records van de geselecteerde soorten wegschrijven. ook_niet_commercieel: ook datasets onder CC BY-NC (alleen niet-commercieel gebruik) meenemen. Standaard aan: de uitvoer is bedoeld als intern werkdocument. Zet op False wanneer het resultaat gedeeld of gepubliceerd wordt; dan komen alleen datasets onder CC0 en CC BY mee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNo
lonNo
padYes
wktNo
adresNo
filterNobeschermd,rodelijst
gemeenteNo
jaar_totNo
jaar_vanNo
straal_mNo
met_recordsNo
tijdsbudget_sNo
alleen_bedreigdNo
ook_niet_commercieelNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses file naming conventions, the second records file when met_records=True, JSON metadata contents, dataset-column notation, licensing defaults, and the distinction between source dataset and validation status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well organized: purpose and output behavior come first, followed by dataset-split details and an Args section. Each section adds necessary information for a complex export tool, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is complete for output format, metadata, licensing, and dataset splitting, but it does not explain return values despite having no output schema. It also delegates the full filter semantics to soorten_in_gebied and leaves several parameters undocumented, which creates gaps for an agent without access to that sibling's description.

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?

Only three parameters (pad, met_records, ook_niet_commercieel) are explained in the Args section. With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the remaining geospatial and filter parameters are left to their schema titles and the generic reference 'Zelfde filters als soorten_in_gebied', which is insufficient compensation for such a large parameter set.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Schrijf een volledige gebiedsbevraging weg als CSV of JSON'. It clearly identifies the output formats, optional records, metadata, and the report-oriented purpose, which distinguishes it from sibling query tools like soorten_in_gebied.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the intended use ('Bestemd voor datarapporten') and ties the filters to the sibling tool soorten_in_gebied. It also gives conditional guidance for met_records and ook_niet_commercieel, but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it directly with alternatives.

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