arcgis_pro_remove_mapRemove a map from an ArcGIS Pro project by providing the .aprx path and map name. Use confirm to authorize deletion and return a structured output.
ArcGIS Pro：移除地图。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only vague boilerplate about 'verifiable structured results' and 'write and path restrictions' without saying what is destroyed, that the map is removed from the .aprx on disk, or what the confirm flag actually gates.
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, which is good, but the second clause is generic filler that consumes roughly half the text without conveying any tool-specific information.
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 destructive three-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations-level explanation of the confirm gate, the definition leaves too much unstated for correct invocation.
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% across three parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It never explains aprx_path, map_name, or the critical confirm flag (default false) that likely guards this destructive operation, leaving the agent with no semantic grounding.
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 and resource ('移除地图' / remove map), which is clearer than the bare tool name. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related destructive siblings such as arcgis_pro_remove_layout, arcgis_pro_remove_layer, or arcgis_pro_remove_table, so an agent must infer scope from the name alone.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to prefer (e.g. remove_layer for layers vs remove_map for entire maps). The trailing clause about 'service capabilities' is boilerplate rather than actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.