layer_infoGet an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by url: fields (name + type), geometry type, total record count, and capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feature/Map Service layer url, e.g. ".../FeatureServer/0". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "url": "https://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/rest/services/City_of_Abbotsford/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the output composition (fields, geometry, record count, capabilities) but no additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or edge cases. It does not contradict annotations.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists all key outputs without any filler. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has a simple parameter set (1 param) and rich annotations, so the main missing piece is output structure. The description enumerates what is returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities) but does not specify the exact JSON shape or potential error conditions. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity; the description is largely complete for agent use.
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 input schema already provides a full description for the 'url' parameter (e.g., 'Feature/Map Service layer url, e.g. ".../FeatureServer/0"'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description merely mentions 'by url' without adding extra semantics beyond what the schema supplies, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'), and method ('by url'). It also lists the specific outputs (fields, geometry type, total record count, capabilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query_layer' that likely query data instead of schema.
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 description implies usage: if you need a layer's schema information, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance is given, so usage is implied but not fully explicit.
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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all provide data lookup/research. The PolyMarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also creates boundary confusion despite varied signals.
Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb phrases (query_layer, validate_claim), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, layer_info). Descriptions are readable overall, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.
34 tools is high and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated ArcGIS Abbotsford purpose. The set appears to be a generic Pipeworx data/prediction-market toolkit with only a few GIS-specific tools, making the count excessive for the declared scope.
For the ArcGIS Abbotsford domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info cover GIS functionality, lacking update/delete/create operations or broader dataset management. For the actual Pipeworx domain, coverage is decent, but that does not match the server name.