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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), giving expectations without contradicting the annotations.
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 packs all necessary information without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, listing the tool's purpose and key outputs.
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 schema retriever with one required parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return contents (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), and no output schema is needed because the description fully covers what to expect.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond naming 'url', so the schema carries the burden.
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 lists the exact contents returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like query_layer, which would focus on data rather than schema.
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 details for a layer identified by URL. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools, so usage guidance is implicit 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.
The set mixes several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants (beta is explicitly identical to stable right now), six Polymarket tools with similar opportunity-scanning purposes, and two AI-visibility tools that duplicate each other. However, the descriptions are detailed enough that an agent can usually pick correctly, so the ambiguity is moderate rather than severe.
Tool names follow no single convention — some are verb_noun (query_layer, validate_claim), some noun_noun (entity_profile, layer_info), some company-prefixed clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and a few standalone verbs (forget, recall). While snake_case is consistent, the absence of a uniform verb_noun pattern across the set makes it unpredictable.
At 34 tools, the server is oversized for its apparent purpose, and the count is even more problematic because most tools belong to a general Pipeworx/data platform while only 3 serve the 'Arcgis Princewilliam' GIS theme. The set feels like two unrelated servers merged, with many tools earning no clear place in a unified product.
The GIS side is a read-only stub (search, schema, and query) with no editing or feature-level retrieval, and the broader Pipeworx side has a notable dead end: tools return pipeworx:// citation URIs but no tool is provided to fetch those resources. The result is a surface that is simultaneously over-built in prediction markets and under-built in its namesake domain.