arcgis_pro_utility_network_infoRetrieve Utility Network version, topology status, domain networks, and tiers for an ArcGIS Pro map source to inspect network configuration and health.
读取 Utility Network 版本、拓扑状态、domain networks 和 tiers。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| source_kind | Yes | ||
| source_identifier | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact information returned (version, topology status, domain networks, tiers), but does not disclose prerequisites, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose, though it could afford a few more words to document parameters without becoming verbose.
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?
The description communicates the return content, and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, with four required parameters and no parameter descriptions anywhere, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation, and there is no usage context.
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?
Four required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, source_kind, source_identifier) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter or how to supply values. The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning, format, or expected sources.
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 (读取/read) and resource (Utility Network), and enumerates exactly what is read: version, topology status, domain networks, and tiers. This distinguishes it from siblings like arcgis_pro_utility_network_trace or arcgis_pro_validate_utility_network_topology, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use context, exclusions, or alternatives. It simply states what is read, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus other utility network operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.