Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Orovalley

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "out_fields": "*",
+    "url": "https://services.arcgis.com/orovalley/arcgis/rest/services/Parcels/FeatureServer/0",
+    "where": "1=1"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 100,
+    "out_fields": "PARCEL_ID,ZONE_TYPE,ACRES",
+    "url": "https://services.arcgis.com/orovalley/arcgis/rest/services/Zoning/FeatureServer/0",
+    "where": "ZONE_TYPE = 'Residential'"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With annotations already indicating read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context about returns ('attribute rows (and geometry)') and sampling. However, it does not disclose potential pitfalls like service availability, pagination limits beyond schema, or performance considerations. The annotation coverage reduces the burden, but the description could still add more value.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that cover purpose, parameters, return type, and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the schema includes examples and full parameter descriptions, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the return type and sampling tip, making it fairly complete. However, it could briefly mention limitations (e.g., only queries a single layer at a time) or clarify the relationship to sibling tools like search_within, so it's not a 5.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful usage pattern beyond the schema: 'Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample.' This practical hint helps the agent understand how to use the parameters effectively, exceeding the schema's basic descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Query an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer by its url (from search_datasets).' This specifies a distinct verb (query) and resource (ArcGIS layer), and the mention of 'from search_datasets' differentiates 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?

The description implies usage context by referencing 'from search_datasets' and provides a practical tip ('Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like search_within, leaving some room for interpretation.

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

All Arcgis Orovalley 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources