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 provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by specifying the exact information returned (fields with types, geometry type, record count, capabilities), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not disclose potential errors or rate limits, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.
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, then lists the key data returned. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values by listing fields, geometry type, record count, and capabilities. For a single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like error behavior are not critical here.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the url parameter. The description confirms that the url is used to fetch the layer schema but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema. It enumerates the returned attributes (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), making the tool's function unmistakable and differentiating it from siblings like query_layer which would fetch data 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 tool is for retrieving schema/metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_layer or search_within. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the usage guidance 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.
The tools span vastly different domains (AI visibility, data querying, prediction markets, GIS) with clear descriptions individually, but the set lacks a coherent focus. An agent looking for ArcGIS functionality would be distracted by many unrelated tools, causing confusion in tool selection.
Most tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (remember, forget), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info), and some include underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt vs. bet_research). The naming feels arbitrary.
With 33 tools, the count is high, but the vast majority are from Pipeworx and unrelated to the server's stated purpose (Arcgis Roanoke). Only 3-4 tools actually relate to GIS. The tool count is extremely inappropriate for the server's focus.
For the implied domain of ArcGIS Roanoke, the tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking CRUD for map layers, spatial queries, or data management. Conversely, the Pipeworx subset is also incomplete on its own (e.g., missing many data sources). The overall surface fails to serve any single domain well.