lookup_agol1:1 wrapper for /api/agol/. Retrieve City of Portland ArcGIS Online metadata, webmaps, locators, and portal info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| type | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds a vague '1:1 wrapper' but no extra behavioral details like auth or rate limits. With annotations present, the description's contribution is minimal but not contradictory.
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?
The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the key point (wrapper for /api/agol/). It is concise but could be improved by adding structured details without significant bloat.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, enum, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what each type returns, when to use specific types, or how the id parameter works. Sibling tools are not contextualized. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'metadata, webmaps, locators, and portal info' which loosely maps to the 'type' enum values. It does not explain the 'id' parameter or how type values correspond to specific retrievals. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with a 9-value enum.
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?
Description states it retrieves City of Portland ArcGIS Online metadata, webmaps, locators, and portal info, which indicates a clear verb-resource purpose. However, it lumps multiple data types together without explaining that the 'type' parameter selects among them, and it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like get_portlandmaps_detail.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data types (assessor, permits, land use, sewer, geometry, etc.), but get_portlandmaps_detail overlaps conceptually with the specific search tools as a generic detail fetcher. This could cause confusion about which tool to use for a particular record.
The vast majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern. However, two tools (get_portlandmaps_detail, suggest_portlandmaps_address) redundantly include the server name, breaking the otherwise consistent naming scheme.
11 tools cover a broad range of Portland city data and GIS operations. The count is well-scoped for the domain—neither too sparse nor excessive.
The server covers major data categories like assessor, permits, land use, sewer, geometry, and spatial queries. Potential gaps like explicit zoning or code lookups might exist, but the set is largely comprehensive for typical PortlandMaps queries.