arcgis_pro_workspace_list_datasetsList datasets in an ArcGIS Pro workspace with filtering by name pattern and dataset type, returning verifiable structured results.
ArcGIS Pro：列出工作空间。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_items | No | ||
| wild_card | No | * | |
| dataset_type | No | ||
| workspace_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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only generic context about verifiable structured results and service-capability limits, which is vague but not contradictory.
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?
The description is short and not bloated, but its first sentence is misleading and the second is boilerplate. It is concise without being sufficiently front-loaded with accurate purpose 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?
The tool has an output schema and strong annotations, so return format and safety need not be explained. However, the description fails to state the actual purpose, does not distinguish it from sibling listing tools, and adds no parameter context, leaving an agent under-informed.
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% with four parameters (`workspace_path`, `max_items`, `wild_card`, `dataset_type`), and the description provides no meaning for any of them. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 '列出工作空间' (list workspaces), but the tool is `workspace_list_datasets` and is meant to list datasets inside a workspace. This misstates the resource and does not differentiate it from siblings such as `arcgis_pro_workspace_list_feature_classes`, `arcgis_pro_workspace_list_rasters`, or `arcgis_pro_workspace_list_tables`.
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?
It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The many sibling workspace listing tools make explicit routing especially important, and none is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.