arcpro-mcp

by qiobn

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Create Map

create_map

Create a new map in the current project and open it in ArcGIS Pro for viewing.

Instructions

Create a new map in the project. Open it in ArcGIS Pro to view it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No		Map

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the map is created and opened in ArcGIS Pro to view, implying it does not automatically open afterward. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or any destructive behavior. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and relatively concise. However, the second sentence 'Open it in ArcGIS Pro to view it' could be considered redundant or better integrated. Overall, it is well-structured but not minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context on potential name conflicts, required project setup, or limitations. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete but has gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond its default value. It adds no additional meaning about constraints, uniqueness, or formatting. For a single parameter, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new map in the project' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_layout' or 'add_raster_layer' which also create new items. The verb 'create' and noun 'map' are clear but lack differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says to create a map with no context on prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions. The sibling tools list suggests other creation tools exist, but no differentiation is made.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.