Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tucson

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Query Layer

query_layer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query an ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer by its url (from search_datasets). SQL-like where, comma-separated out_fields, order_by, limit, offset. Returns attribute rows (and geometry). Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFeature/Map Service layer url ending in /FeatureServer/<n> or /MapServer/<n>.
limitNoMax features (1-2000, default 50).
whereNoSQL where clause, e.g. "STATE = 'CA' AND YEAR >= 2020". Default "1=1".
offsetNoPagination offset.
order_byNoe.g. "POP DESC".
out_fieldsNoComma-separated field names, or "*" for all (default).

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency. Description adds that it returns attribute rows and geometry, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: purpose, parameter summary, usage tip. No fluff, front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return type (attributes + geometry). Lacks description of response format or error handling, but acceptable given no output schema and rich annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reiterates the parameters with minimal additional context (e.g., 'SQL-like'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it queries an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer by URL, with SQL-like parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_datasets, which might be confused.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a specific usage tip ('Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample') but lacks guidance on when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Arcgis Tucson toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While individual tool descriptions are detailed and specific, the set includes overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several prediction market tools with similar purposes (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). The broad range of unrelated domains means many tools are distinct, but some pairs are ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile), and some have inconsistent structure (discover_tools, recent_alerts). The mix of conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Tucson', as only 3 tools relate to ArcGIS (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer). The rest span completely unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, npm scanning, etc.), creating a severe mismatch between server name and tool functionality.

Completeness3/5

Considering the actual tool surface (a diverse data retrieval and prediction market analysis set), it is reasonably complete for common lookups (SEC, FDA, economics, news, bets). However, it lacks web search and the ArcGIS tools are minimal. The absence of a cohesive domain makes completeness hard to judge, but for the implied data-retrieval purpose, it's passable.

Resources