Skip to main content
Glama

Ebird

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Notable

recent_notable
Read-onlyIdempotent

Only notable (rare / out-of-range / first-of-season) sightings in a region. Sometimes the most interesting subset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backNoDays back (1-30, default 14)
detailNosimple | full (default simple)
max_resultsNo1-10000 (default 100)
region_codeYeseBird region code

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of notable observations returned
region_codeYeseBird region code used for the query
observationsYesList of notable (rare/out-of-range) observations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "region_code": "US"
+  },
+  {
+    "back": 30,
+    "detail": "full",
+    "region_code": "US-TX-201"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of notable observations returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "observations": {
+      "description": "List of notable (rare/out-of-range) observations",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "checklist_id": {
+            "description": "eBird checklist submission ID",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "common_name": {
+            "description": "Common name of the species",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "count": {
+            "description": "Number of birds observed",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "exotic_category": {
+            "description": "Exotic status category if applicable",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "latitude": {
+            "description": "Latitude of observation",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "location": {
+            "description": "Location name",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "location_id": {
+            "description": "eBird location identifier",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "longitude": {
+            "description": "Longitude of observation",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "observed_at": {
+            "description": "ISO datetime of observation",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "private_location": {
+            "description": "Whether location is private",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "reviewed": {
+            "description": "Whether observation was reviewed",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "scientific_name": {
+            "description": "Scientific name of the species",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "species_code": {
+            "description": "eBird species code",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "valid": {
+            "description": "Whether observation passed validation",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "region_code": {
+      "description": "eBird region code used for the query",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "region_code",
+    "count",
+    "observations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the results are filtered to notable (rare, out-of-range, first-of-season) sightings, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying note. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or output structure, but the output schema compensates. The description is functional but not rich.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional information about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'notable (rare / out-of-range / first-of-season) sightings' in a region. It uses specific verbs and resource type, and the phrase 'most interesting subset' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recent_observations' and 'recent_alerts'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when the user wants only notable sightings ('Only notable...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like 'recent_alerts' or 'recent_observations'. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

All Ebird toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools are close cousins: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying data catalog, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage share a betting-research niche. The eBird tools are clearly a different cluster, but the server carries so many unrelated domains that an agent may struggle to pick the right category member (e.g., stable router vs beta router vs grounded router).

Naming Consistency3/5

Almost everything is snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform: there are plenty of verb_noun names (find_species, list_subregions, scan_competitor_ai_presence) mixed with bare consumer-style names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, deep_research) and short helpers (recall, forget, remember). No mixed scripting-case chaos, but no consistent verb_noun or noun_verb system either.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for a server that calls itself Ebird: only ~5 tools actually relate to bird observation, while the rest span Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket betting, legal/regulatory analyzers, memory, subscriptions, competency scanning, npm package checking, and llms.txt generation. The count would be reasonable for a broad data platform, but the server's stated identity and the bundled tool set do not match, making the scope feel bloated and incoherent.

Completeness2/5

For a bird-centric server, the surface is thin: you can find a species, list subregions, and pull recent/notable observations, but you cannot get coordinated eBird atlases, hotspot details, species life-history stats, or region-based species lists. For the larger set of unrelated tools, completeness is impossible to gauge about a missing domain; the eBird purpose feels unfinished even though the miscellaneous tools are overloaded.

Resources