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://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/rest/services/Tallahassee/FeatureServer/0"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, rate limits, side effects) beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, single parameter, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation. No output schema is needed for this task.
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 and example for the 'url' parameter. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), but does not add semantic details beyond the schema.
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 retrieves a layer's schema including fields (name + type), geometry type, record count, and capabilities. It directly distinguishes from likely sibling tool 'query_layer' by focusing on schema rather than data retrieval.
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 use for schema info but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'query_layer'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.
Multiple tools are near-duplicates or strongly overlapping: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are only mode/version variants, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions, ai_visibility_check with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the Polymarket tools with each other. An agent would frequently need a deep read of the descriptions to know which one is truly appropriate.
The naming is almost entirely snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun or domain_noun pattern, e.g. query_layer, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, compare_entities. Minor deviations like entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, but the overall pattern is still recognizable and predictable.
34 tools for a server branded 'Arcgis Tallahassee' is far too many, especially since only a handful of them are GIS-related. The rest constitute a large general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, which at this tool count becomes unwieldy and will increase an agent's selection failure rate.
The core read-only GIS flow is covered (search_datasets → layer_info → query_layer), and the Pipeworx side is broad. However, there are notable gaps: no ArcGIS service management, no layer/feature editing, no spatial operations, and no deeper GIS functions. Because the server's stated purpose is ArcGIS-focused, the overall surface is only partially complete relative to that domain.