arcgis_pro_list_chartsList chart summaries for layers or standalone tables in an ArcGIS Pro project to inspect existing data visualizations and their typed ArcPy definitions before editing or analysis.
列出图层或独立表上的 typed ArcPy 图表摘要。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| member_name | Yes | ||
| member_type | No | LAYER |
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond this — no statement of what 'typed' summaries contain, whether it requires an open project, or any scoping behavior — so it earns little credit for 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, it is under-specified for a 4-parameter tool rather than genuinely concise, so it stops short of a 5.
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 not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage or prerequisite guidance, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke a 3-required-parameter tool reliably.
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% across 4 parameters. The phrase 'layers or standalone tables' loosely hints at the member_type distinction (LAYER vs TABLE), but aprx_path, map_name and member_name are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent unable to tell what values are expected.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... chart summaries') with scope ('on layers or standalone tables'), and the word 'summaries' implicitly distinguishes it from arcgis_pro_chart_info and arcgis_pro_export_chart. It does not name those siblings, so the differentiation is only implied rather than explicit.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus arcgis_pro_chart_info (single-chart detail), arcgis_pro_export_chart, or arcgis_pro_upsert_chart, and no prerequisites such as whether the aprx must be loaded. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.