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/Montana/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what the tool returns (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), providing value beyond 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. It front-loads the primary action and lists the returned data components without unnecessary words.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and annotations cover safety. The description lists the expected return components, which is important given no output schema. It does not elaborate on potential errors or 'capabilities' meaning, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward schema-inspection 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, with a clear example and type description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema via URL, listing specific returned components (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This is specific and 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 schema information is needed for a layer) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest related functionality, but the description lacks explicit guidance.
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.
Several clusters of similar tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are easily confused, and the many polymarket_* tools overlap heavily. However, the extremely detailed descriptions usually clarify the specific intent, so an agent can often pick correctly.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or a recognizable prefix pattern (ask_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). There are a few noun-phrase exceptions like layer_info and entity_profile, but the style is consistent enough that naming is not a major source of confusion.
34 tools is heavy for any server, and especially for one named 'Arcgis Montana' where only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to GIS. Most of the surface is a general-purpose data/analytics API, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
Relative to the implied ArcGIS Montana purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it only supports searching and querying datasets, with no create/update/delete or administrative capabilities. The Pipeworx functionality is broad, but the GIS side is a thin slice, leaving obvious gaps for geospatial workflows.