Fetch recent bird observations from eBird for a specific region, with options to limit days back and number of results.
Get recent bird observations from eBird.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| back | No | Days back (max 30) | |
| api_key | No | ||
| maxResults | No | ||
| regionCode | Yes | e.g. AU-VIC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as rate limits, return shape, pagination, or what "recent" operationally means.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is stated immediately, even though the overall definition is under-specified 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?
With no output schema and only 50% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain the recent-observation window, maxResults behavior, API key usage, and return format. As written, an agent knows the broad purpose but lacks enough detail to call it confidently.
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 only 50%: "back" and "regionCode" have descriptions, while "api_key" and "maxResults" do not. The description itself mentions no parameter semantics, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or clarify how maxResults interacts with recent observations.
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 ("Get") and resource ("recent bird observations") plus the source ("eBird"). It is clear enough to distinguish from a general species-info tool, though it does not explicitly name the notable-observations sibling.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebird_notable_observations. It also does not state when-not to use it or any prerequisites beyond the schema's required regionCode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.