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 safe read-only behavior. Description adds context on what the tool returns (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), enhancing transparency beyond 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and output, no redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the input. Annotations cover safety. No gaps.
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 parameter description. Description adds overall purpose but no additional parameter-level semantic detail beyond what schema provides.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema', listing exact return components (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities). Differentiates from siblings like 'query_layer' which queries data.
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?
Implies usage for retrieving layer schema, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like 'query_layer'. No exclusions or conditions provided.
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.
While many tools have distinct purposes, there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as multiple Polymarket and entity-related tools. Descriptions are detailed but could confuse agents on which tool to use for a specific query.
Most tool names use snake_case and many start with verbs, but there is inconsistency with noun-starting names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_feedback. No strong verb_noun or other consistent pattern across the set.
With 33 tools, the count is relatively high but could be justified for a broad data platform. However, given the server name 'Arcgis Sanjose', the number seems excessive as most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS geospatial functions.
The tool set is severely incomplete for the implied ArcGIS San Jose domain, with only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) supporting that purpose. The rest are from the Pipeworx ecosystem, creating a mismatch between server name and actual functionality.