arcgis_pro_list_temporary_viewsList temporary feature layers and table views created by the current MCP or window host process, including their opaque references, to track in-session GIS data.
列出当前 MCP 或窗口宿主进程创建的临时 feature layer/table view 及其不透明引用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the list is scoped to views created by the current MCP or window host process and returns opaque references, which helps the agent understand process-scoped ephemeral state. It does not cover auth or why/how to use the references, so not a 5.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every part earns its place with no filler.
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?
Given an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description only needs to state what is listed and its scope, which it does. A slight gap remains in not mentioning the sibling release_temporary_view, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps; the empty schema is fully adequate.
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 specific verb ('list'), resource ('temporary feature layer/table view'), and scope ('created by the current MCP or window host process'). This distinguishes it from persistent list tools like arccgis_pro_list_layers or arccgis_pro_list_tables.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies listing temporary views, but does not say when an agent should call this versus release_temporary_view or list_layers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.