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.arcgis.com/dukes-county/arcgis/rest/services/Parcels/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact returned schema components (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which clarifies what the tool delivers without contradicting 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, then lists specific outputs. No redundant words 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?
For a simple metadata retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, this description is fully adequate. It tells the user what they will get (schema details) and how to invoke it.
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 fully covers the single required parameter (url) with a description and example, so baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 gets an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by URL, enumerating specific outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer.
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 when to use the tool (when you need layer schema metadata) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear enough for selection.
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.
ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes that require reading long descriptions to separate. The server name promises ArcGIS Dukes County but most tools are unrelated, making the overall selection space confusing.
Most names are snake_case, but conventions vary: some are verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some noun-ish (entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending), some bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), and some long compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Readable overall, but no strong consistent pattern.
34 tools is heavy, and only three (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's apparent ArcGIS Dukes County purpose. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory/utility toolkit, creating a severe scope mismatch with the server's name.
For the named Dukes County GIS domain, the surface is minimal—dataset discovery, schema, and queries—with no spatial operations or editing, though read-only access may be acceptable. For the broader Pipeworx functionality it is fairly comprehensive, but that is not what the server name advertises, leaving the set incomplete relative to its apparent identity.