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/PalmBeachCounty/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities) and limiting scope to schema retrieval, which is consistent with annotations. No contradiction.
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 that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned items. Every word contributes value without 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?
Given only one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (schema fields, geometry type, count, capabilities). It is complete for the tool's simplicity and leaves no critical gaps.
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 has 100% coverage for the single `url` parameter, clearly describing it as a Feature/Map Service layer URL. The description's 'by url' adds no new semantics beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'. It enumerates exactly what's returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer that likely retrieve data rather than metadata.
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 for schema inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_layer or search_within. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred context, so guidance is only implied by the tool's purpose.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer data questions, while discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but are drowned out by the unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market tools, making it hard to pick the right one.
Tool names are mostly snake_case but mix verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, remember), noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile), and less conventional forms (search_within, generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable and not chaotic, but there is no single consistent pattern across the set.
34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Palmbeach'. Only 3 tools are GIS-related (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info); the other 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory utilities. The count grossly mismatches the server's apparent purpose.
For the stated ArcGIS/Palm Beach County GIS purpose, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only search, query, and layer-schema lookup exist, with no data editing, feature operations, or map-service management. While the Pipeworx domain is heavily covered, that is not what the server name promises, so the surface is a poor fit.