Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lancaster

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).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning it returns attribute rows and geometry, and clarifies the SQL-like nature of the where clause.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter list and a usage tip. Every sentence contributes meaningfully with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers purpose, URL source, parameters, return type, and sampling tip. With a rich schema and annotations, it is nearly complete, though it could optionally mention pagination behavior or alternatives like layer_info, but the schema already covers limit/offset.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra value with the sampling tip and the 'SQL-like' qualifier, which is already partially implied by 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 referencing the source from search_datasets. It lists parameters and return type, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_datasets and layer_info.

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?

Provides clear context that the tool operates on layer URLs from search_datasets and includes a sampling tip (where="1=1" + out_fields="*"). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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

All Arcgis Lancaster 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/discovery entry points. Polymarket tools also blur together (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). While many tools have distinct purposes, these overlapping clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, validate_claim), some are noun_verb (query_layer, layer_info is noun_noun), and some are single vague words (forget, recall, remember). No consistent verb_prefix or resource_suffix convention, and the mix of meta-tools vs data tools makes the naming feel arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Arcgis Lancaster' — only 3 tools relate to GIS. The bulk is an unrelated general-purpose data/prediction-market toolkit, making the count excessive for the apparent scope. Even as a broad data toolset, 34 tools is on the heavy side and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess and clearly lopsided. GIS functionality has search/query/info but no lifecycle management, while the data side has many query/analysis tools but no create/update/delete operations except for subscriptions and memory. Obvious gaps exist for a 'Lancaster' server (e.g., no layer creation, editing, or spatial analysis tools), and the unrelated tools make the set feel incomplete for any single stated purpose.

Resources