Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Chapelhill

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query Layer

query_layer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer by its url (from search_datasets). SQL-like where, comma-separated out_fields, order_by, limit, offset. Returns attribute rows (and geometry). Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFeature/Map Service layer url ending in /FeatureServer/<n> or /MapServer/<n>.
limitNoMax features (1-2000, default 50).
whereNoSQL where clause, e.g. "STATE = 'CA' AND YEAR >= 2020". Default "1=1".
offsetNoPagination offset.
order_byNoe.g. "POP DESC".
out_fieldsNoComma-separated field names, or "*" for all (default).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "out_fields": "*",
+    "url": "https://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/rest/services/example/FeatureServer/0",
+    "where": "1=1"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 100,
+    "order_by": "PARCEL_ID ASC",
+    "out_fields": "PARCEL_ID,OWNER,ZONE",
+    "url": "https://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/rest/services/example/FeatureServer/0",
+    "where": "ZONE = 'Residential'"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by stating it returns attribute rows and geometry, and provides a usage tip. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it does not detail pagination limits or error behavior, which are partly in the schema.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then summarize parameters and return behavior. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (attribute rows and geometry). It also covers the required URL origin, parameter types, and a practical sampling pattern. Combined with the complete schema and annotations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds semantic context by noting the where clause is SQL-like, out_fields is comma-separated, and order_by/limit/offset are supported. The sampling tip further clarifies parameter usage, adding value beyond the schema.

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 queries an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer by URL, explicitly mentioning it is from search_datasets. It lists the key parameters (where, out_fields, order_by, limit, offset) and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the resource type and data source.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context by noting the URL comes from search_datasets, indicating a workflow dependency. It also gives a practical sampling tip (where="1=1" + out_fields="*"). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as layer_info for metadata or search_within for spatial queries.

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

All Arcgis Chapelhill 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources