arcgis_pro_make_table_viewCreates a table view from a dataset path, optionally filters rows with a WHERE clause, and names the output view for ArcGIS Pro analysis.
ArcGIS Pro：创建表。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_path | Yes | ||
| where_clause | No | ||
| out_view_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=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are verifiable/structured and that write and path restrictions depend on service capability, which is mild but real context beyond the annotations.
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 and front-loads the action, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single substantive clause is vague, so the compactness does not earn much credit.
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?
For a write tool with an output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits what a table view is, how it differs from a materialized table, and any parameter meaning. The output schema excuses return-value detail, but the invocation-relevant gaps remain large.
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 parameters, so the schema carries no meaning. The description offers nothing about dataset_path, where_clause, or out_view_name, failing to compensate for the coverage 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?
The description says '创建表' (create a table), but the tool is make_table_view, which produces a table view (a query/definition view over a dataset), not a physical table. This conflates the resource with the sibling gp_create_table and fails to state the actual verb+resource distinction. It is close to a tautology of the name with a mismatched noun.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. With siblings such as arcgis_pro_gp_create_table, arcgis_pro_gp_table_select, and arcgis_pro_make_feature_layer, the agent is given no basis to choose this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.