arcgis_pro_list_label_classesList a layer's label classes and their expressions, SQL queries, language, and visibility status in an ArcGIS Pro project. Use it to inspect labeling configuration for a map layer.
列出图层标注类的名称、表达式、SQL、语言和可见状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| layer_name | 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope of the return (expression, SQL, language, visibility), which is mild extra context but does not go beyond what the output schema likely provides.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler, though it spends its only clause on return fields rather than the required inputs.
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 enumerating returned fields is partly redundant, and the three required path/map/layer inputs remain undocumented anywhere. Adequate but leaves a real gap for a required-parameter tool.
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 all three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, layer_name), and the description mentions none of them. It lists return fields instead, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 (list) and resource (label classes) and names the fields returned (name, expression, SQL, language, visibility). It is distinguishable from the write-side sibling upsert_label_class, though it does not explicitly reference any sibling.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_layer_properties or arcgis_pro_list_definition_queries, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred 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.