Check ArcGIS Pro connection status including version, license, project, map, view, and write access. Run first when issues occur to identify configuration problems.
Self-check the connection: ArcGIS Pro version, licence, open project, active map, open map view and write access. Run this first when something does not work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden. It discloses what is inspected, but never states that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation or whether it reports errors versus returning status values. Adequate but incomplete for a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two tight sentences: the scope is listed first, then the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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-value detail is not the description's job, and with zero parameters and a 100%-covered schema there is nothing further an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The description supplies the scope and trigger, which is the right amount.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, which is already fully covered.
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 ('self-check') and resource ('connection') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (version, licence, project, active map, map view, write access). This differentiates it from sibling diagnostics like ping and get_arcgis_info, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Gives a clear trigger condition ('Run this first when something does not work'), which is actionable troubleshooting guidance. It falls short of 5 because it does not name alternative diagnostic tools (ping, get_capabilities, get_arcgis_info) or state when this is unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.