arcgis_pro_connection_repair_preflightGenerates short-term signed preflight tokens for repairing up to 100 ArcGIS Pro layer or table data sources, binding each repair request to the current connection summary.
对最多 100 个图层/表数据源修复生成绑定当前连接摘要的短期签名预检令牌。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repairs | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes |
| 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a hard cap of 100 repair targets, the token being signed, short-lived, and bound to the current connection digest (implying invalidation if the connection changes). Token TTL and failure modes are still unstated.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terse one-liner leaves no room for the workflow context the agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a preflight step in a two-phase repair workflow, the description omits the relationship to arcgis_pro_connection_repair_apply, the token lifetime, and the structure of repair entries — gaps that matter for correct invocation.
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% for both required parameters. The description partially compensates for 'repairs' by implying an array of up to 100 layer/table targets, but says nothing about the shape of each repair entry and nothing at all about 'aprx_path', which is undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 verb and artifact — generating a short-lived signed preflight token for repairing up to 100 layer/table data sources. It is clearly distinguishable from generic list/describe tools, but it never names or references the sibling arcgis_pro_connection_repair_apply, so the two-phase preflight/apply pattern is left implicit.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a precursor step to arcgis_pro_connection_repair_apply and that the emitted token is the input to that call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.