Skip to main content
Glama

ShowMeOnMap

by com.showmeonmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add bivariate fusion layer

add_fusion_layer

Spatially join two existing layers and add a new layer that encodes both values per region as a 3x3 bivariate choropleth. Both layers must already exist in the workspace. Auto-detects the numeric value field from each layer's viz config; pass value_field_a / value_field_b to override. Returns the new layer_id, correlation r, and matched-feature count. Required: map_id, layer_a_id, layer_b_id.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNobivariate
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.
layer_a_idYes
layer_b_idYes
new_layer_idNo
value_field_aNo
value_field_bNo

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",
-  "layer_a_id",
-  "layer_b_id",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "map_id",
+  "layer_a_id",
+  "layer_b_id"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, and the description usefully adds the workspace precondition, the auto-detection behavior, and the return payload (layer_id, correlation r, matched-feature count). It omits failure behavior (e.g. layers without a numeric field) but is solid for an annotated mutation tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact, then prerequisites, then overrides, then the return summary. Dense but every sentence carries information; no padding.

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 an 8-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the prerequisite, the override mechanism, and the return values. Gaps remain around the undocumented mode/new_layer_id parameters and error handling, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate and it partly does: it maps map_id/layer_a_id/layer_b_id as required and explains value_field_a/value_field_b as overrides of auto-detection. It says nothing about mode, new_layer_id, or the rationale label, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('spatially join two existing layers and add a new layer') plus the exact output artifact (3x3 bivariate choropleth), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like add_layer, correlate_layers, and run_analysis.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Both layers must already exist in the workspace') and explains the auto-detect-vs-override decision for the value fields. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it falls short of full routing 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