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=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by stating it 'Get's schema information. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is returned (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which is richer than just 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists the key outputs. Every element is necessary and nothing is extraneous.
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?
The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema). The description lists what is returned but does not specify the output structure or format (e.g., JSON). For a schema retrieval tool, noting the response format would improve completeness. Still adequate for selection.
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% (only one parameter: url), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('by url') but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema's description. No additional information about format or constraints is provided.
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'), identifies the resource ('an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by url'), and lists the output components (fields with name and type, geometry type, total record count, capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query_layer' which retrieves 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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving schema/metadata from a URL. While it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, the sibling list provides enough context for an agent to differentiate between info and query operations.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the various ask_pipeworx variants and entity research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). The subtle differences between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are likely to cause agent misselection.
Tool names use inconsistent patterns: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, query_layer) mixed with descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) and no clear verb_noun structure. Some names are vague (process, run) though those are absent here; overall naming is arbitrary.
34 tools is too many for an Arcgis Tigard server. The majority are generic Pipeworx data query tools (27+ tools) that have little to do with ArcGIS, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused for the server's stated purpose.
The server severely lacks ArcGIS-specific functionality. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) are relevant to ArcGIS; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx tools. Essential ArcGIS operations like editing, analysis, or visualization are missing, making the surface incomplete.