arcgis_pro_chart_mutation_capabilitiesReads chart edit boundaries and rejects unsupported chart deletions when no ArcPy API exists, helping callers avoid invalid ArcGIS Pro chart operations.
读取图表变更边界；当前明确拒绝没有受支持 ArcPy API 的图表删除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral boundary: chart deletion without a supported ArcPy API is explicitly rejected. It does not describe return format, error shape, or how other mutation capabilities are reported.
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 one compact sentence with two useful clauses: the primary read action and the current deletion limitation. It is front-loaded and waste-free, though the second clause could be slightly more explicit about what is being rejected.
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 has no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete for a capabilities-query tool. It states the purpose and one important mutation boundary, though it does not preview what categories of chart mutations are considered.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the empty input schema plus 100% coverage correctly indicate that the tool takes no arguments.
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 states a specific action ('read chart mutation boundaries') and adds the current limitation that unsupported chart deletion is rejected. This is clearer than a bare tautology, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like arcgis_pro_list_charts, arcgis_pro_chart_info, or arcgis_pro_upsert_chart. The resource term 'mutation boundaries' remains somewhat abstract.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling chart tools. It mentions one supported/rejected boundary condition, but that is not framed as usage advice or as an alternative-selection rule. An agent must infer the tool's role from its name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.