arcgis_pro_set_map_series_pageSet the active MapSeries page in an ArcGIS Pro layout by page number or page name, so you can work with a specific page.
按页码或页名切换布局 MapSeries 当前页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| page_name | No | ||
| layout_name | Yes | ||
| page_number | No |
| 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 this changes the 'current page' and offers two selector modes, but says nothing about required preconditions (e.g., a map series must exist) or side effects on open views.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the core action and its two selector modes are stated immediately.
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, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should say more about aprx_path/layout_name and the map-series precondition, leaving a real gap for a state-mutating tool.
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 4 parameters. The description only alludes to page_number and page_name (the two selector modes); it says nothing about aprx_path or layout_name, and does not clarify that page_number and page_name are mutually exclusive. Compensation for the coverage gap is weak.
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 names a specific verb (切换/switch) and resource (MapSeries 当前页), plus the two selection modes (页码/页名). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from map-series siblings such as arcgis_pro_map_series_info or arcgis_pro_refresh_map_series.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of page number or page name suggests the tool is used to navigate to a specific page. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives like arcgis_pro_refresh_map_series.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.