Skip to main content
Glama

create_style

Create a hosted map style. Provide a name and optionally a theme document ({base: "light"|"dark", palette: {slot: colour}, layers: {layer_id: overrides}}); omitted, the style starts from the default theme. A theme may also set worldview (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, accepted: AE, KR, SA, US) to display that jurisdiction's official names for a small curated registry of renamed features; omitted, labels keep the OSM on-the-ground names. Returns the generated style_id (pass it to set_palette / set_layer_paint) and the compiled style URL for MapLibre.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable style name; its kebab-case slug seeds the style id.
themeNoOptional theme document (palette/layer overrides). Omitted, the style starts from the default theme carrying `name`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
themeYesThe theme document that was stored.
versionYesThe published version (always 1 on create).
style_idYesThe generated style id — pass it to `set_palette`, `set_layer_paint` and `get_style`.
style_urlYesImmutable URL of the compiled style at this version.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default-theme behavior, optional worldview filtering with accepted ISO codes, fallback to OSM on-the-ground names, and the return format. It does not cover auth, persistence, or rate limits, but the core side effects are clearly described.

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 a dense but efficient paragraph with the main purpose front-loaded. It is slightly long because of the worldview detail and return-value explanation, but every sentence contributes actionable information rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and a schema that under-describes the theme object, the description is self-sufficient. It covers required input, optional theme structure, accepted worldview codes, default behaviors, output values, and even names sibling tools that consume the returned style_id.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is high, placing the baseline at 3, but the description adds meaningful detail: it expands the theme parameter into its structure ({base, palette, layers}), enumerates accepted worldview values, and clarifies what happens when each optional parameter is omitted. This goes beyond the schema's generic theme description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening phrase 'Create a hosted map style' is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as get_style, list_style_layers, set_palette, and set_layer_paint. It also states the main output (style_id and compiled style URL), removing ambiguity about the tool's role.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context: provide a name, optionally supply a theme document, and rely on defaults when omitted. It even tells the agent that the returned style_id should be passed to set_palette/set_layer_paint, which implies a create-then-modify workflow. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct action and resource pair, and descriptions are explicit about which tool fits which scenario. The closest overlaps—plan_ev_route vs cheapest_charging_along_route, and route vs plan_day vs order_stops vs optimise_routes—are mitigated by clear guidance, so an agent can usually pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (plan_ev_route, set_palette, list_style_layers) with a consistent geo_ prefix for geometry helpers. Minor deviations like elevation, route, and matrix are short and readable but break the strict verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 39 tools, this surface is well past the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad mapping platform. The set spans routing, geocoding, places, styles, EV/fuel, telematics, usage, and feedback, which would be easier for an agent to navigate if split into smaller domain-focused servers.

Completeness4/5

For the stated breadth, coverage is strong: routing, multi-stop planning, VRP, EV/fuel detours, geocoding, places, geometry, style lifecycle, and telematics all have workable primary paths. Minor gaps like no style deletion, no route alternatives, and no batch geocoding are present but do not create dead ends for core workflows.

Resources