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 affirm read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the specific return fields (fields, geometry, record count, capabilities), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions were found.
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, tightly written sentence that leads with the primary action and enumerates return content. Every phrase earns its place, with no 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?
For a simple one-parameter metadata tool, the description fully covers the purpose, the input source, and the output components. The safety profile is provided by annotations, so no additional context is needed.
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 fully documents the 'url' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description only repeats 'by url' and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'), and lists exact outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling query_layer, which likely retrieves data instead of 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 provides clear context: it is for retrieving layer schema, not querying features. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use query_layer for actual features'. Without an explicit comparison, it earns a 4.
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.
Many tools have overlapping or redundant purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, and several polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) all surface trading opportunities with similar outputs. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but buried among dozens of unrelated data/meta tools, making selection confusing.
All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are bare verbs (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming style is readable but not predictably patterned.
34 tools is already high, but the severe issue is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS Delaware County purpose. The other 31 are Pipeworx data, memory, subscription, and prediction-market tools, which is a blatant scope mismatch. The tool count is not appropriate for the advertised server domain.
For an ArcGIS Delaware County GIS server, the surface is extremely thin: only search, query, and layer metadata exist. There are no tools for editing features, uploading data, managing layers, or exporting maps. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools form a broad but fragmented domain with many monitoring and meta-tools but no clear end-to-end workflow. The set is severely incomplete for its apparent dual purpose.