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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns total record count and capabilities, which provides some context beyond a simple 'read-only' label. However, it does not disclose potential performance costs of the count operation or any authentication requirements.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the exact output fields. No filler or redundant phrases.
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 metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without further explanation.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, which is well-described as a Feature/Map Service layer URL with an example. The description repeats 'by url' but adds no new format details, so it meets the baseline without elevating the score.
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' with a clear resource: 'ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema'. It lists exact return components (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_layer that likely retrieve actual feature 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?
The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when needing a layer's schema/metadata by URL. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over query_layer or search_within.
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 ArcGIS tools (query_layer, layer_info, search_datasets) are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx family has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools can all appear as plausible entry points for a similar data lookup task. The memory and subscription tools are well separated, but the router-style tools create real ambiguity.
Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case names with a verb-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, subscribe, remember) or clear noun descriptors (entity_profile, layer_info, polymarket_edges). A few names are more cryptic (recall, forget, resolve_entity) but they still follow the same style. No mixed camelCase or inconsistent separators.
34 tools is well beyond what the apparent ArcGIS Washington County purpose needs; only three tools actually concern GIS data. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research suite, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and AI-visibility probes. This makes the surface feel like two or three unrelated servers grafted together rather than one scoped package.
For the ArcGIS slice, you can discover, inspect, and query layers, but there is no write or create capability, no field-wise editing, no map/feature export, and no feature-level CRUD. The Pipeworx data side is more comprehensive, but the overall server confuses its purpose. The mixed-domain coverage leaves the GIS part only a thin slice of the offered features.