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". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds specific behavioral details about the return content (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities) beyond annotations, without contradicting them. It does not discuss error handling or access prerequisites, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 conveys all key information without waste. Every clause contributes meaning: the resource type, the URL input, and the specific schema elements returned.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description lists the expected return components (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It does not cover error scenarios or URL accessibility, but these are less critical for a read-only metadata 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%, so the baseline applies. The description mentions 'by url' but adds no meaningful semantic beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already fully documents the single required parameter.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'), listing specific outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). It differentiates from siblings like query_layer and search_within by focusing on schema/metadata rather than data retrieval.
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 you need schema information for an ArcGIS layer by URL) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool list includes query_layer and search_within, but no direct comparison is provided in the description.
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.
Many tools are very similar (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and serve the same purpose with slight variations, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the tool set mixes completely unrelated domains (ArcGIS geospatial vs. Pipeworx/Polymarket data), further confusing the purpose of each tool.
Tool names follow multiple conventions: ask_pipeworx uses snake_case, while layer_info and query_layer use snake_case as well but with a different pattern. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; some are descriptive (validate_claim) while others are vague (process, run). The mix of conventions and lack of a unified naming scheme hurts predictability.
At 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on ArcGIS Peoria. Only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) are actually related to geospatial data, while the other 31 are from external services (Pipeworx, Polymarket). This mismatch suggests the server is extremely poorly scoped.
For a geospatial server, the tool set is severely incomplete. It lacks basic GIS operations like spatial filtering, editing, or analysis. The three geospatial tools only provide schema discovery and simple attribute queries. Meanwhile, the bulk of the tools cover a completely different domain (data lookup, prediction markets), leaving the core domain almost entirely unaddressed.