ShowMeOnMap

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 (call build_map or add_layer first). 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, rationale.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		bivariate
`map_id`	Yes
`rationale`	Yes	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.
`layer_a_id`	Yes
`layer_b_id`	Yes
`new_layer_id`	No
`value_field_a`	No
`value_field_b`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it creates a new layer, returns correlation and counts, and allows field override. It does not specify error handling or side effects beyond return, but sufficient for agent behavior understanding.

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 three sentences: core function, prerequisites/override, and return/required. Front-loaded with key action, no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, override, and return fields. Missing details like error conditions or output structure, but adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

With very low schema description coverage (13%), the description must compensate. It explains rationale, value_field_a/b, and required parameters. However, it fails to mention 'new_layer_id' (present in schema) and 'mode' (const bivariate), leaving ambiguity about custom ID input.

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 clearly states the tool spatially joins two layers and creates a new bivariate choropleth layer. It distinguishes from siblings like add_layer (adds an existing layer) and build_map (creates map from layers) by specifying the fusion nature.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Both layers must already exist') and advises calling build_map or add_layer first. It also notes auto-detection and override capability. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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

All ShowMeOnMap 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs such as select_within/focus_area and correlate_layers/add_fusion_layer overlap in function, differing mainly by input type or output (read vs. write). The descriptions adequately explain these differences, so agents can distinguish them with careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_layer, filter_layer, export_image, remove_annotation). Minor exceptions like undo/redo/tag are conventional single verbs and do not detract from the overall predictability.

Tool Count4/5

At 25 tools, the server is on the heavy side, but each tool serves a distinct operation in a comprehensive mapping workspace—covering creation, editing, analysis, export, and history. The number feels justified by the broad feature set rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of layers and workspace state, including add/remove/rename/restyle/filter, build/get/mutate/undo/redo, export, and tagging. Minor gaps such as annotation editing, layer reordering, or direct data updates exist, but they are not critical blockers for typical workflows.

Resources

Need Help?