arcgis_pro_list_style_itemsLists available symbols, colors, and other style items by style, style class, and wildcard to help locate reusable styles in an ArcGIS Pro project.
按样式、style class 和 wildcard 列出项目可用符号/颜色等 StyleItem。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | Yes | ||
| wildcard | No | * | |
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| style_class | 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (no auth needs, no note on how max_items truncation or result ordering behaves), so it neither helps nor contradicts.
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 short sentence with the scoping criteria front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description omits the purpose of aprx_path, the meaning of max_items, and the prerequisite that the style be present in the project. Too many gaps for an agent to call it confidently.
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% and there are 5 parameters, yet the description only names three concepts (style, style class, wildcard) and gives no syntax or format guidance. aprx_path and max_items are left completely undocumented, and the wildcard default '*' is not explained in 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?
States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (StyleItem – symbols/colors) scoped to a project style, which an agent can identify immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as arcgis_pro_list_color_ramps or arcgis_pro_list_basemaps, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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 indication of when to use this versus the other list_* tools, and no prerequisite stated (e.g., that the style must already be added to the project via arcgis_pro_add_project_style). Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.