MapMap

list_style_layers

List everything a MapMap style theme can style: the named palette slots with their light/dark default colours, the skeleton layer ids (paint order) that set_layer_paint accepts, and the OpenMapTiles source-layers extra layers may reference. Attribution is enforced on every compiled style and cannot be themed away. Local lookup, no network; always works.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`layer_ids`	Yes	The skeleton layer ids a theme's `layers` may override, in paint order (first = bottom).
`attribution`	Yes	The attribution contract: enforced on every compiled style, not themable.
`palette_slots`	Yes	The named palette slots a theme's `palette` may override, with their light/dark defaults, in presentation order.
`source_layers`	Yes	The OpenMapTiles source-layers the tiles emit; `extra_layers` must reference one of these.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explicitly states attribution is enforced and cannot be themed away, and that lookup is local with no network and always works. It could have explicitly said the operation is read-only, but 'List' plus the output schema largely covers that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, immediately enumerating the three categories of things it lists. The two follow-up sentences about attribution and local lookup earn their place by adding important behavioral context without padding.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is fully adequate: it specifies what categories of data are returned, mentions an important constraint (attribution), and reassures about availability. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because there is nothing to configure.

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 description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource: everything a MapMap style theme can style, broken into palette slots, skeleton layer ids, and OpenMapTiles source-layers. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like set_layer_paint, set_palette, and get_style.

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 context by stating that skeleton layer ids are what set_layer_paint accepts and source-layers are what extra layers may reference, making the tool's role as a reference/discovery tool obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for a listing tool.

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

All MapMap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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

Need Help?