Skip to main content
Glama

ShowMeOnMap

by com.showmeonmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Place an annotation on the map (direct)

add_annotation

Add a user-placed label at a specific coordinate. Annotations are independent of layers and live in their own id namespace. Strict: the id must not already be in use by another CURRENTLY-placed annotation (removed ids can be recycled).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesStable id for this annotation — caller-supplied.
colorNoOptional CSS color for the marker + label.
labelNoOptional text rendered at the point.
coordsYes[lng, lat] in WGS84.
map_idYes
rationaleNoOptional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. "add wildfire layer". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / rationale / description
      Previous value: -"Short audit-log label (≤300 chars) stating the user-facing goal this call serves, e.g. \"add wildfire layer for the user's California query\". Required on every call. Stored in the operations log so map edits stay traceable — we never see your chat history."New value: +"Optional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. \"add wildfire layer\". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "map_id",
-  "id",
-  "coords",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "map_id",
+  "id",
+  "coords"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / coords / items
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]New value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / coords / maxItems
      Added value: +2
    • addedInput schema / properties / coords / minItems
      Added value: +2
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: annotations are layer-independent, use a separate id namespace, and the id must be unique among CURRENTLY-placed annotations with removed ids recyclable. It stops short of stating the failure mode when the id is in use.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then namespace scope, then the uniqueness constraint. No filler, though the terse 'Strict:' lead-in reads slightly clipped rather than polished.

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?

For a 6-param, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key ambiguities: what an annotation is, that it is layer-independent, and the id collision rule. It does not state the error behavior on a duplicate id or how the call is acknowledged, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents id ('Stable id'), coords ([lng, lat] WGS84), color and rationale. The description meaningfully extends the id parameter by explaining the namespace and strict uniqueness rule, which the schema does not state, adding real value over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a user-placed label at a specific coordinate') and clarifies scope by noting annotations are 'independent of layers' and live in their own id namespace, which separates it from add_layer/add_fusion_layer. It never explicitly names a sibling tool (e.g. remove_annotation) as a contrast, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for placing a free-standing marker rather than a layer, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The id-uniqueness statement is an operational constraint, not selection guidance.

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

All ShowMeOnMap toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources