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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact schema components returned (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), which is additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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, efficiently worded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the key outputs. No wasted words, and the structure places the action and resource first, making it easy to scan.
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, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the return data, which is essential since no output schema exists. It could optionally mention handling of invalid URLs, but this is not critical for a read-only schema tool.
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 provides a complete description of the 'url' parameter (including an example), so schema coverage is 100%. The description simply says 'by url' which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline score of 3.
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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema') and enumerates the exact returned data: fields, geometry type, record count, and capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer, which would be used for data queries, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 clear usage context: when you need schema information for an ArcGIS layer. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'for data, use query_layer'), but the specificity of the resource and output makes the intended use clear without being misleading.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently identical to ask_pipeworx. discover_tools and suggest_questions both exist to help agents find tools, and the five Polymarket tools have subtle, hard-to-distinguish boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Tool names are mostly lowercase snake_case with verb-noun structure (query_layer, search_datasets, resolve_entity), which is consistent and readable. However, some names break the pattern (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback) and the prefixes are not uniform. Still, the convention is predictable enough to navigate.
34 tools is a heavy count, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated 'Arcgis Lacounty' purpose. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) serve the named GIS domain, while the rest form a sprawling collection of data-lookup, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is a severe scope mismatch.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an ArcGIS LA County server: no layer listing beyond keyword search, no metadata endpoints, no editing, no spatial operations. The broader tool set lacks a coherent domain, making coverage impossible to assess beyond noting the glaring absence of core GIS functionality.