Search USDA ITIS by common name to find matching species records. Enter a common name such as lion, oak, or salmon to retrieve taxonomic entries.
Search USDA ITIS for species by common name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Common name to search (e.g. lion, oak, salmon). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond that: it names the source and search axis but does not describe matching behavior, result format, or limits; with annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for such a simple search tool.
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 one-parameter read-only search tool, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits return-shape context and does not mention the related itis_get_full_record tool for full records. There is no output schema, so a little more information about what comes back would improve completeness.
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?
The schema already has 100% coverage and documents the single `name` parameter with examples. The description confirms the parameter represents a common name but adds no further syntax, matching, or formatting details beyond the schema.
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 (Search) and resource (USDA ITIS species) with the matching axis (common name). It does not distinguish itself from the related itis_get_full_record tool or other species-search tools, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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 sentence describes what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as itis_get_full_record or other taxonomy search tools. At best, common-name searching is implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.