Skip to main content
Glama
whiteknightonhorse

APIbase

by whiteknightonhorse
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List Sub-Breeds For A Breed

dogceo.breeds.sub_breeds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up all recognized sub-breeds for a single dog breed by name; returns an empty list when none are available.

Instructions

List the known sub-breeds for a single dog breed (e.g. breed="terrier" → ["american", "australian", "bedlington", ...]). Returns an empty list if the breed has no recognized sub-breeds. No auth required, MIT licensed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
breedYesDog breed to look up sub-breeds for (e.g. "bulldog", "terrier")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
resultNoTool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Returns an empty list if the breed has no recognized sub-breeds' and 'No auth required', which are useful edge-case and accessibility details beyond annotation hints. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with a concrete example, an edge-case guarantee, and an auth/license note. No filler and key facts are front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description plus annotations cover input, edge behavior, and safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the breed parameter is already described. The example breed="terrier" → [...] illustrates usage but adds little semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('known sub-breeds for a single dog breed'), and includes a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dogceo.breeds.list, which would list breeds rather than sub-breeds.

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 establishes the intended context ('single dog breed') and the input shape, implicitly telling the agent this is not the tool for all-breeds lookup. It does not explicitly name dogceo.breeds.list as the alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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