Creates a copy of the MXD in the scratch workspace and sets visibility for specified layers, requiring confirmation to proceed.
Create an MXD copy in scratch and change visibility only for named layers. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| visible | Yes | ||
| mxd_path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| output_mxd | Yes | ||
| layer_names | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it creates a copy (non-destructive to the original) and that only named layers' visibility changes, which is useful. However, it omits details about overwrite behavior, the lifetime of the scratch copy, required permissions, or any side effects, so significant behavioral information is missing.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with such a specific function.
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?
With 6 parameters (4 required) and zero parameter explanation, the description is far from complete for an agent to call correctly. Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to cover essential behavioral and parameter semantics, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 0%, and the description only hints at 'named layers' (layer_names) and 'visible.' It does not explain mxd_path, output_mxd, confirm, or overwrite, and it provides no details on how these parameters interact. This leaves the agent without essential parameter guidance for a 6-parameter tool.
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 clearly states a specific action: creating an MXD copy and altering visibility only for named layers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export/convert functions and list/describe tools by its unique copy-and-visibility behavior, so an agent can identify its purpose unambiguously.
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?
The only usage hint is 'Requires confirm=true,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or contrast with any of the many sibling tools, leaving the selection context undefined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.