eBird MCP Server

get_checklist

Retrieve a complete bird observation checklist from the eBird database by providing its unique identifier to access all recorded sightings and details.

Instructions

Get details of a specific checklist including all observations.

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": {
      "sub_id": "<sub_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sub_id`	Yes	The checklist identifier (e.g., 'S29893687')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether it's a read-only operation, what happens with invalid IDs, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' and 'observations' entail in the response format.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail ('including all observations') that earns its place by clarifying scope.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' or 'observations' mean in the response, nor does it cover error handling, permissions, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'sub_id' with its type, description, and requirement. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific checklist including all observations', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recent_checklists' (list) or 'get_checklists_on_date' (date-filtered), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives for fetching checklist details.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid checklist ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_recent_checklists' for different use cases.

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