MapMap

set_layer_paint

Set one MapLibre paint property on one skeleton layer of a hosted style (e.g. layer_id "road-major", property "line-width", value 4 or an expression array) and publish the result as a new immutable style version. Layer ids come from list_style_layers. Returns the new version and style URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes	The paint value (any MapLibre-valid JSON: number, colour string or expression array).
`layer_id`	Yes	Skeleton layer id, e.g. "road-major". Call `list_style_layers` for the accepted ids.
`property`	Yes	MapLibre paint property name, e.g. "line-width" or "fill-color".
`style_id`	Yes	Hosted style id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`version`	Yes	The newly published version.
`style_id`	Yes	Hosted style id.
`style_url`	Yes	Immutable URL of the compiled style at this version.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive in effect by publishing 'a new immutable style version', and it states the returned artifacts ('new version and style URL'). It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the core side-effect is clearly communicated.

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?

Two sentences deliver the verb, target, scope, example, prerequisite id source, and return value with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is functionally complete: it states the operation, target, examples, where layer ids come from, and what is returned; an output schema handles return shape. It could explicitly mention set_palette as the multi-property alternative for full sibling differentiation, but the gap is minor.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already describes all four parameters in detail, including value types and examples. The description adds a concrete example ('road-major', 'line-width', '4') and reminds the agent that expressions are valid, but this largely mirrors the schema's existing documentation. With 100% schema coverage, the description's added semantic value is modest.

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 names a precise operation: 'Set one MapLibre paint property on one skeleton layer of a hosted style', immediately clarifying scope and context. It also explains the outcome ('publish the result as a new immutable style version') and explicitly contrasts this with related styling tools by using 'one property' and 'one skeleton layer'.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when you need to change a single paint property on a layer, and it tells the agent where to get valid layer ids ('Layer ids come from list_style_layers'). It does not explicitly contrast with set_palette or state when not to use it, but the single-layer/single-property framing is clear context.

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?