arcgis_pro_set_metadataSets metadata for an ArcGIS Pro dataset, including title, tags, summary, description, credits, and access constraints, to document GIS data consistently.
ArcGIS Pro：设置元数据。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| credits | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| dataset_path | Yes | ||
| access_constraints | 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 largely covered. The description adds a hint about write and path restrictions being service-dependent, but provides no specifics on permissions, what existing metadata is affected, or failure modes.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. The most useful information (which fields, prerequisites) is absent.
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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a write tool with seven undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke 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% across 7 parameters (tags, title, credits, summary, description, access_constraints, dataset_path), so the description must compensate but instead says nothing about any parameter. Only a loose mention of 'path restrictions' faintly gestures at dataset_path.
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 verb and resource ('set metadata'), which is clear enough, but it essentially restates the tool name and title without specifying what kind of metadata or how it is set. It doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from the read counterpart arcgis_pro_get_metadata.
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 alternatives, nor prerequisites such as requiring an open project/dataset. The only guidance is a vague remark that write and path restrictions depend on service capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.