arcgis_pro_list_basemapsLists available basemap names in an ArcGIS Pro project, with optional wildcard filtering, so you can identify basemaps before assigning or analyzing them.
列出工程当前可用的 basemap 名称。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wildcard | No | * | |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond this — no note on which project is queried, what happens with an invalid/no aprx, or the shape of the listing.
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 efficient sentence, well front-loaded with verb and resource, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing — no parameters or usage context are covered.
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 values need no explanation, but for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description omits the required aprx_path and the wildcard filter entirely. An agent cannot call this correctly from the description alone.
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 parameters, yet the description never mentions aprx_path (required) or wildcard (the filtering parameter). With no schema-level documentation, the description had the burden of explaining these and does not; only '工程当前可用' weakly hints at a project context.
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 clear verb (列出/list) and resource (basemap 名称) with the scope 'currently available in the project', which distinguishes it from arcgis_pro_add_basemap. However it does not name or contrast with any sibling tool (e.g. list_maps, list_layers), so differentiation relies on the agent noticing the unique 'basemap' resource word.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the required aprx_path. The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the implicit resource match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.