Skip to main content
Glama
Knight60

ArcGIS Pro MCP

by Knight60
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

delete_field

Remove one or more attribute fields from a specified ArcGIS Pro layer or table to clean up schema or eliminate unneeded data.

Instructions

Delete one or more fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
map_nameNoMap to act on; defaults to the active map.
field_nameNoSingle field to delete.
layer_nameYesLayer or table name as shown by get_layers, or a full dataset path.
field_namesNoSeveral fields to delete.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / field_name / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / field_name / default
      Added value: +null
    • addedInput schema / properties / field_name / description
      Added value: +"Single field to delete."
    • removedInput schema / properties / field_name / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / field_names
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Several fields to delete.",
+  "title": "Field Names"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / layer_name / description
      Added value: +"Layer or table name as shown by get_layers, or a full dataset path."
    • addedInput schema / properties / map_name / description
      Added value: +"Map to act on; defaults to the active map."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "layer_name",
-  "field_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "layer_name"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether it requires save_edits or an active edit session, whether it works on shapefile/table data sources, or what happens to dependent data — significant gaps for a destructive mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it earns credit for efficiency but not a perfect score.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits edit-session requirements, irreversibility, and permission context. The output schema and parameter descriptions partially compensate on return values and arguments, but the behavioral gaps remain material.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'one or more fields' hints that field_name and field_names are alternative ways to specify targets, but it never clarifies that they are mutually exclusive or whether both can be passed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (fields) with scope (one or more), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like alter_field or delete_dataset, nor clarify the relationship to add_field/delete_features.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no note about required edit sessions or save_edits, and no mention of alternatives such as alter_field or delete_dataset. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools