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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what information is returned but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as performance implications of fetching total record count or any network-specific considerations.
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 core action ('Get an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema') and efficiently lists the key outputs. There is no wasted text.
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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explicitly lists the main return values (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), and no output schema is needed given this clarity.
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?
The input schema already provides full coverage of the 'url' parameter with a clear description and example. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve an ArcGIS layer's schema, listing specific components (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like query_layer or search_within.
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 tool is used when a layer's schema is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives like query_layer for data queries, so usage context is only implicit.
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.
Several near-duplicate tool clusters exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, as do polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread. The three ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but their purpose is drowned out by the unrelated Pipeworx data tools.
Most names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). Verbs are also inconsistent across similar actions (scan_ vs check_ vs compare_, and three different polymarket_ verbs plus a bare bet_research).
34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named Arcgis Pittsburgh and only 3 of the 34 tools relate to Pittsburgh GIS data; the other 31 belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, npm auditing). This is an extreme scope mismatch — the tool count is far too high for the stated purpose and mostly irrelevant noise.
For the ArcGIS Pittsburgh domain, the surface has basic read coverage (search datasets, inspect layer schema, query records) but no update/delete/write operations and no geospatial analysis tools, which are significant gaps for a GIS server. The broader tool set is a grab bag of research, prediction-market, and memory features that don't form a coherent lifecycle for any single domain, so completeness cannot be assessed as a unified surface.