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://gis.puyallupwa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/PublicServices/Parcels/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contents (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral aspects like performance implications of counting records or any URL format restrictions beyond the schema example.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence delivers a complete thought without wasted words. It lists the key output elements succinctly and immediately states the tool's action and target.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the exact schema components returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). It is clear that the tool is for metadata rather than data queries. Minor omissions like error handling or authentication requirements are acceptable for a simple read-only 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% with a single parameter, and the schema already describes the URL format with an example. The description's mention of 'by url' is redundant. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 begins with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'), then enumerates concrete return items: fields (name + type), geometry type, total record count, and capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer or search_within, which focus on querying 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 phrase 'by url' gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving layer schema from a URL. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is evident and distinct from sibling tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.
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 tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve research questions through the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a dense prediction-market cluster. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent choosing between these near-synonyms would frequently need extra reasoning or make the wrong pick.
Names mix product-prefixed verbs (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), generic verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_alerts). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention across the set, making the tool surface feel patchwork rather than systematically named.
With 34 tools, the count is already on the heavy side, but it is especially mismatched with the server name 'Arcgis Puyallup': only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info actually belong to that GIS domain. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, so the set feels bloated and off-scope for the apparent purpose.
The ArcGIS read-only surface is minimally reasonable: search, schema inspection, and querying cover basic open-data consumption. The Pipeworx side is quite rich, with memory, subscriptions, lookups, grounded verification, and discovery, but the named GIS domain is thinly served and lacks obvious capabilities like listing all datasets or browsing layers without a keyword. Overall, coverage is uneven and hard to evaluate cleanly because the server mixes two unrelated purposes.