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/Kansas/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), giving the agent a clear picture of call results beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It lists all key return elements without extraneous words or repetition.
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, strong annotations, no output schema), the description fully conveys purpose and return contents. The listed items (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities) serve as an adequate return contract for the agent.
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% and the only parameter 'url' is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond restating 'by url', so it does not exceed the baseline for well-documented schemas.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource (ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema), listing returned items (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer, which likely queries 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 implies the tool is for retrieving layer schema but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. It does not mention query_layer or any when-not-to-use conditions, leaving usage to inference.
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 purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all deal with prediction market edges). The inclusion of memory tools (remember, recall, forget) alongside research tools further blurs boundaries.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), some use underscores with prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), and others are more generic (query_layer, layer_info). There is no consistent pattern across the set.
With 34 tools, the set is overly large for a geospatial server; most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS Kansas (e.g., prediction market tools, general research tools). Only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are pertinent, making the count excessive and unfocused.
The server claims to be an ArcGIS Kansas tool but provides only basic layer querying and dataset search. Missing essential GIS operations such as editing, spatial analysis, or advanced queries, making it severely incomplete for its stated purpose.