arcgis_pro_list_sde_datasetsLists SDE datasets from a connection path, with wildcard filtering and item limits, to inventory or validate ArcGIS Pro enterprise geodatabase content.
ArcGIS Pro：列出list sde datasets。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_items | No | ||
| wild_card | No | * | |
| sde_connection_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, so the safety profile is covered. The description's note that results are verifiable/structured and that write and path restrictions depend on service capability adds a small amount of context, but it is too vague to be actionable.
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?
It is short, but roughly half of it is generic boilerplate ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions per service capability') that does not earn its place. Front-loading of the list action is fine.
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 explained, but with 0% schema coverage on parameters and no usage guidance, an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly versus sibling list tools. The description should compensate for the undocumented parameters and it does not.
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 three parameters (sde_connection_path, wild_card, max_items), and the description says nothing about their meaning, format, or defaults. Only the self-evident naming of the required path parameter keeps this above the floor.
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?
It states a verb ('list') and a resource ('sde datasets'), so the core action is identifiable. But it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as arcgis_pro_workspace_list_datasets or arcgis_pro_workspace_list_feature_datasets, and the Chinese/English duplication adds no scope detail.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many other list/workspace inspection tools in the sibling set. The closing clause about 'service capability' gestures at preconditions but names no concrete condition or alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.