Retrieve folder connections, database connections, and toolboxes registered in an ArcGIS Pro project so you can inspect available data sources before geoprocessing.
Folder connections, database connections and toolboxes registered in the project.
| 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 behavioral burden, but it only lists item categories and says nothing about read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or output shape. The get_ prefix hints at a read operation, but the description itself does not disclose that.
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?
It is a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is a fragment and under-specifies the action. The structure front-loads the item categories but does not lead with a clear verb.
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 detailed in the description. However, with many sibling list/get tools, the description should better distinguish what this tool returns and when to choose it, and it omits the action verb entirely.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the baseline. The schema is empty and fully documented by virtue of having no inputs.
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 identifies the resource categories (folder connections, database connections, toolboxes) but omits any action verb, so it does not fully state what the tool does. It partially distinguishes from siblings like get_project_info and list_toolboxes by naming different item types, but remains a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-plus-resource statement.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_info, list_toolboxes, or list_workspace_contents. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.