Check ArcGIS extension licence availability and optionally check it out for use in your session.
Check, and optionally check out, an ArcGIS extension licence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkout | No | Check the licence out if it is available. | |
| extension | Yes | "Spatial", "3D", "Network", "ImageAnalyst", "GeoStats", ... |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the optional checkout but does not disclose that checkout consumes/holds a licence (a stateful mutation), whether it is reversible or auto-returned, or any permission requirements. The one hint it gives is already present in the schema's checkout parameter description.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action and appending the optional variant. Every word earns its place.
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 explained, and the schema documents both parameters. What is missing is the behavioral context a licence tool needs: whether checkout has persistent state consequences. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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 100%, with both parameters documented and the extension parameter listing example values. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (check) plus resource (ArcGIS extension licence) and notes the optional checkout variant. No sibling tool in the list deals with licence state, so sibling differentiation is not needed, but the sentence is terse enough that the exact distinction between 'check' and 'check out' is left to the parameter name.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a licence server must be reachable, or that checkout is needed before extension-dependent geoprocessing). Usage is only loosely implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.