gbif-mcp

soort_status

Retrieve official protection, Red List, and invasive species status for a species in Belgium/Flanders, with sources. Supports environmental assessments and permit checks.

Instructions

Beschermings-, Rode-Lijst- en exotenstatus van één soort in Vlaanderen/België, met bron per vermelding.

Raadpleegt de gezaghebbende lijsten op het Vlaams Biodiversiteitsportaal (Soortenbesluit met categorie 1-3, Habitatrichtlijn bijlagen II/IV/V, Vogelrichtlijn, Bern, Bonn, CITES, Unielijst invasieve soorten, gevalideerde en niet-gevalideerde Vlaamse Rode Lijsten, IUCN, prioritaire en provinciaal belangrijke soorten) én de GBIF-checklists (Rode Lijst Vlaanderen, GRIIS België). samenvatting geeft per lijstcode de categorie; vermeldingen de details en URL's.

Lege vermeldingen = op geen van deze lijsten aangetroffen; dat is geen uitspraak over het werkelijke beschermingsstatuut (bv. alle inheemse vogels genieten basisbescherming via het Soortenbesluit, ook al staan ze niet als aparte regel op de lijst). Zeg dat er dan bij.

Args: soort: Nederlandse of wetenschappelijke naam, of GBIF-taxonKey.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`soort`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`exoot`	No
`soort`	Yes
`melding`	No
`kanttekening`	No
`samenvatting`	No	Per lijst_code de categorie, als snelle samenvatting.
`vermeldingen`	Yes	Alle gevonden lijstvermeldingen. Leeg = op geen enkele geraadpleegde lijst gevonden (≠ onbeschermd; zie melding).
`geraadpleegd_op`	No
`koppeling_twijfel`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the consulted registers, the output fields 'samenvatting' and 'vermeldingen', and the crucial caveat that absence from the lists is not a statement about actual legal protection status. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 well structured: a lead summary, the authoritative sources, the output contract, and the usage caveat each earn their place. The parameter guidance is clearly separated and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter query tool, the description covers input formats, result semantics, source details, and the empty-result interpretation. An output schema exists)Skip, and the description explains return fields sufficiently for an agent to understand what will happen.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the 'Args' section specifies that 'soort' accepts a Dutch or scientific name, or a GBIF taxonKey. For a single string parameter, this gives the agent exactly the input alternatives it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Beschermings-, Rode-Lijst- en exotenstatus van één soort in Vlaanderen/België' – a precise, resource-scoped statement. It clearly narrows the operation to a single species and to legal/red-list/invasive statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'waarnemingen' and '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?

It gives clear context: use this tool for authoritative protection, Red List, and invasive-species status with per-entry sources. It also adds an interpretation rule for empty 'vermeldingen'. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

Deploy Server