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://gis.longviewtx.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OpenData/Parcels/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 data the tool retrieves (fields, geometry, count, capabilities), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss potential errors or external network dependencies, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 includes all necessary information without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is perfectly concise.
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 low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states the return content and implicitly scopes the tool to schema retrieval, which covers the essential information an agent needs.
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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the url parameter. The description's mention of 'by url' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The list of returned items gives some context but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource: an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema. It enumerates the exact information returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer that work with actual data.
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 usage (when you need schema details), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. While the sibling context suggests query_layer for data queries, the description itself offers no such guidance, leaving it to the agent to infer.
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.
Descriptions are unusually explicit about when to use each tool (single lookup vs grounded vs deep research), but the set still contains several genuinely overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility, and six polymarket_* tools share the same 'edge/arbitrage' conceptual space. An agent can usually pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in several clusters.
Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, and there are coherent prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). However the verb placement is inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_compare, layer_info, polymarket_edges), and bet_research sits outside the polymarket_* family despite being a prediction-market tool.
34 tools is well past the 'feels heavy' threshold, and more importantly the set mixes what looks like three different servers: a tiny ArcGIS/Longview GIS slice (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets), a massive general-purpose data-research platform from Pipeworx, and a Polymarket prediction-market toolkit. Most tools earn their place for the platform, but far too few belong to the named domain.
The research surface is remarkably complete: a router, grounded and beta variants, deep multi-source research, claim verification, entity/profile/change resolution, discovery and suggestion helpers, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feedback — no obvious lifecycle dead ends. Minute gaps exist on the GIS side (no dataset editing, no metadata browsing, no named export/view ops) and a few nooks like screen- leisure tools have no progress/status endpoints, but these are workaroundable.