Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ebird_species_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves bird species information from eBird by species code, providing taxonomy, distribution, and conservation details.

Instructions

Get information about a bird species from eBird.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "speciesCode": "<speciesCode>"
    },
    "name": "ebird_species_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
speciesCodeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about lookup failure behavior for unknown species codes, no coverage of which eBird taxonomy/response the tool surfaces.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form but reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should convey what is returned (taxonomy, names, range, conservation status?) and the expected input format. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or construct a valid speciesCode with confidence.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. The required speciesCode is the critical unknown (eBird codes like 'norcar' vs common/scientific names), and api_key handling is undocumented in both places.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a verb and resource (get information about a bird species from eBird), so the domain is clear, but it is nearly a restatement of the tool name and gives no sense of what 'information' means or how it differs from ebird_recent_observations and ebird_notable_observations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling eBird tools that an agent must choose between. The agent must infer that this is the species-metadata tool versus the observation-listing ones.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools