hk-spatial-mcp

publish_layer

Publishes a loaded CSDI dataset to ArcGIS Online as a hosted feature layer using an ArcGIS token, returning the new item ID and service URL.

Instructions

Publish a loaded CSDI dataset to ArcGIS Online as a hosted feature layer. Needs ARCGIS_TOKEN. Returns itemId + the new service URL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dataset_id": "<dataset_id>"
    },
    "name": "publish_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tags`	No	CSDI,Hong Kong
`title`	No
`dataset_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.12.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behaviors: an external auth requirement (ARCGIS_TOKEN) and a real side effect (creating a hosted layer in an external account). It omits whether publishing overwrites an existing service, who can see the result, or how to undo it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the auth requirement and return shape. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, though it helpfully does (itemId + service URL). The real gap is argument documentation: for a 3-param mutation with zero schema coverage, the description should at least say what dataset_id refers to and what title/tags control.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, and the description names none of them. Neither dataset_id (required) nor title nor tags (with its 'CSDI,Hong Kong' default) is explained, so an agent learns nothing about arguments from either source.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (publish), a specific resource (a loaded CSDI dataset), and a specific destination (ArcGIS Online as a hosted feature layer). It is clearly separable from siblings like load_hk_data (local ingest) and build_map (visualization).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'loaded CSDI dataset' implies the prerequisite that load_hk_data must run first, which is useful context. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server