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". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific return fields, which is useful context, but it does not discuss auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits. No contradiction with 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains zero filler and every word contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple read-only metadata tool with one parameter and no output schema, listing the returned items (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities) is fairly complete. It could mention error handling or URL format specifics, but those are secondary given the straightforward scope.
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 description coverage is 100%; the url parameter is fully described in the schema with an example. The description repeats 'by url' but adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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: 'Get an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by url' and enumerates the specific schema components returned (fields with name+type, geometry type, total record count, capabilities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer, which likely retrieves actual features rather than metadata.
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 the tool is for schema inspection rather than data querying, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tool names like query_layer suggest the distinction, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance or exclusions.
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 tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as functionally identical right now, and polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_edge_tracker all surface trade opportunities with similar outputs. discover_tools and suggest_questions also cover similar 'what can I do' territory.
All names are snake_case and many use verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), but a large minority use noun/adjective phrases (layer_info, recent_changes, polymarket_edges, bet_research) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The pattern is readable but not fully predictable.
34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold and deeply mismatched with the server name: only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to ArcGIS Albuquerque. Most of the surface is a general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, making the set bloated and unfocused.
The advertised ArcGIS domain has only search-schema-query coverage: there is no way to list all datasets, apply spatial filters, or get service-level metadata. The Pipeworx half is feature-rich, but for the server as titled the tool surface has significant gaps and a large amount of irrelevant functionality.