Query a curated ArcGIS whitelist layer to retrieve Andorran geospatial data, filter records with SQL-style clauses, and limit results for mapping or analysis.
Query a layer in the curated ArcGIS whitelist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| where | No | 1=1 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only query and that only whitelisted layers are permitted, but says nothing about permissions/auth, rate limits, whether results are paginated, or how the whitelist is defined or discovered. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But it is concise by omission rather than by discipline: the sentence is too thin to serve the tool, which is under-specification rather than good editing.
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?
Given a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no title, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the meaning of the whitelist, the filter syntax, and result limiting are all missing.
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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It loosely ties "layer" to the whitelist but leaves "limit" (default 50) and especially "where" (a SQL-style filter defaulting to "1=1") completely unexplained, including syntax and whether it is injection-safe.
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 states a verb ("Query") and resource ("a layer"), and adds a scoping constraint via "curated ArcGIS whitelist," so the purpose is discernible. However, it never explains what a "layer" or the whitelist is, and gives no differentiation from the many sibling tools (search_catalog, bopa_search, stats_search, etc.). It is adequate but vague.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for alternative geospatial or catalog needs. The only implicit guidance is that the layer must be in the whitelist, which is a constraint rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.