Check whether an ArcGIS FeatureServer layer is reachable and responsive.
Returns JSON: {ok, ms (latency), name, geometry_type, field_count,
record_count, capabilities, max_record_count}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| service_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return JSON format, which adds value, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. A 3 is appropriate for adequate but incomplete transparency.
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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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 low parameter coverage (0%), the description should compensate but only lists return fields, which are already defined in the output schema. It does not explain the token parameter or provide usage context. For a simple health-check tool, it is moderately complete but has 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the parameter names. It mentions 'service_url' implicitly in the purpose but does not explain 'token' or provide formatting details. This is a missed opportunity.
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's purpose: checking if an ArcGIS FeatureServer layer is reachable and responsive. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'service health', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_service' by focusing on basic reachability.
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 provides a clear purpose but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to sibling tools like 'audit_service' or 'full_service_audit' for deeper checks.
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.