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.arcgis.com/orovalley/arcgis/rest/services/Parcels/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return contents (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities) but does not disclose potential performance implications of counting records or other behavioral traits.
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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific output components. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, what it requires (URL), and what it returns. Combined with the strong annotations, the description is complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, the schema already documents its meaning. The description simply says 'by url', adding no significant semantic detail beyond what is already in the input schema.
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 resource ('ArcadGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'), and enumerates the exact information returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer, which would query 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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving layer schema information by URL, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for querying actual features), so it falls short of a 5.
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.
The descriptions are extraordinarily detailed and genuinely differentiate most tools, but the set contains near-clones (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which is explicitly 'identical' to it, and ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus five polymarket tools whose boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs edge_tracker vs fill_risk vs kalshi_spread) overlap enough to cause misselection. An agent navigating this surface must read full descriptions to choose correctly, which defeats quick tool selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but there are clear deviations: bare single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe), prefix-family names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending; polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk), and a disjoint ArcGIS trio (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) that breaks the dominant convention. It is readable but not predictable across the whole set.
34 tools is far beyond what the 'Arcgis Orovalley' purpose warrants — only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to GIS, with 31 unrelated tools bolted on covering financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. This is a sprawling mega-server where an agent must hold an enormous option set in mind; the surface appears to be several platforms fused together rather than one well-scoped toolset.
The genuine ArcGIS surface (search datasets → layer_info → query_layer) is a complete read-only workflow with no dead ends, and the Pipeworx side is impressively comprehensive (routing, grounded answers, research, entity, compare, resolve, validate, memory, subscriptions, feedback). But the tool set as a whole serves no single coherent domain — the declared purpose (ArcGIS Oro Valley data) lacks any write/editing operations, while the majority of the surface addresses unrelated concerns, so 'complete' only applies to one small slice of the 34 tools.