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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what metadata is returned, but does not mention any potential errors, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is acceptable but not exceptional.
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, followed by a succinct list of the returned metadata. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose and return values. It lists the key outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), making the behavior complete for an agent.
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%: the url parameter is clearly described with an example. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter itself, only to the output, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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 ('ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'), and enumerates exactly what is returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer, which likely fetch features 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 the usage: use this tool when you need schema or metadata for an ArcGIS layer. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., query_layer) or state when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask/research family is crowded: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog and require careful description reading to select correctly. Prediction-market tools also overlap in scope, though each has a reasonably distinct angle.
All names are snake_case and mostly readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and some are adjective_noun or brand-prefixed phrases. No consistent verb/noun ordering pattern exists across the set.
34 tools is too many for the apparent focus, especially since the server is named 'Arcgis Phoenix' but only 3 of the tools are actually GIS tools. The bulk is a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market ecosystem plus unrelated utilities, making the set feel over-stuffed and unfocused.
The Pipeworx data side is fairly complete for lookups, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, and subscriptions, but the ArcGIS Phoenix portion is only search/schema/query and lacks any analysis, geocoding, or editing capability. The presence of generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency highlights that the overall domain is undefined and therefore hard to call complete.