Execute approved geoprocessing tasks on ArcMap, requiring confirmation and writing outputs only to the scratch workspace.
Run a whitelisted geoprocessing tool. Requires confirm=true; output must be under scratch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| input_features | Yes | ||
| output_feature_class | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two constraints (confirm and scratch) but does not describe the tool's side effects, what happens if confirm is false, or any potential impact on data. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.
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 concise sentence that states the purpose and key constraints. However, it could be better structured by front-loading the purpose and separating prerequisites more clearly, but overall it is efficient.
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?
The tool runs arbitrary geoprocessing, which is complex, yet the description provides no information on how to select a valid tool, how to structure the parameters object, or what the output schema returns. With no annotations and no parameter explanation, it is incomplete for an agent to call correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. It does not clarify what 'tool', 'input_features', 'output_feature_class', 'parameters', 'overwrite', or 'confirm' mean beyond their schema names. The agent is left to guess the semantics.
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 the verb 'run' and the resource 'whitelisted geoprocessing tool,' which gives a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'run_advanced_geoprocessing' – the term 'whitelisted' is ambiguous and does not explain the distinction.
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 description provides two prerequisites (confirm=true and output under scratch) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over its sibling 'run_advanced_geoprocessing' or other alternatives. It fails to state the intended use case or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.