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/example/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what information is returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the tool's output.
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 action and resource, then concisely lists the output fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without needing additional context about prerequisites or error handling.
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 defines the single 'url' parameter with a clear example and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter's name and purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 purpose with an action verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by url'). It enumerates the exact outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer that retrieve data rather than 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 provides clear context that this tool is for schema/metadata retrieval, not for querying features. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on schema makes the intended use obvious compared to sibling tools like query_layer or search_within.
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 and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently literally identical, and the polymarket_* family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) all orbit the same prediction-market opportunity space. The descriptions are detailed and do help, but the sheer number of near-synonymous entry points makes misselection likely.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case, verb-first pattern: ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, query_layer, resolve_entity, search_datasets, validate_claim. Minor deviations exist — the polymarket_* tools are noun-phrase style and a few names like entity_profile, layer_info, and ai_visibility_check are noun-led — but the overall style is uniform enough to be predictable.
34 tools is already in the overstuffed range, but the bigger problem is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS/Chapel Hill identity. The other 31 tools appear to be an unrelated Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription bundle merged into this server, making the count grossly disproportionate to the apparent purpose.
The three GIS tools form a usable read-only search → schema → query workflow, so the ArcGIS domain is not completely absent. However, as a whole the server has no coherent domain to be complete for, and the ArcGIS side lacks broader capabilities like layer enumeration, spatial filters/statistics, or any write/edit operations. For a server named Arcgis Chapelhill, having 31 out-of-scope tools constitutes a major completeness failure.