Skip to main content
Glama

ShowMeOnMap

by com.showmeonmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add a layer (direct)

add_layer

Append a fully-constructed LayerPlan to an existing workspace without going through NL. Pass the same shape the workspace pipeline emits — { id, title, source, viz, geometry, ... }. Takes a structured plan; natural-language edits go through mutate_map. The full LayerPlan and Op spec are documented in the MCP resource showmeonmap://docs/workspace-ops-spec.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoOptional. Which mental model is this add_layer operating under? "primary-data" = the layer the user actually asked to see; "context-overlay" = supporting data layered on top of a primary; "reference-boundary" = admin/geo boundary used as a backdrop; "annotation" = caller-placed callout / pin layer; "comparison" = a layer added to compare against another; "other" = none of the above.
map_idYesmap_id from a prior build_map call
layerPlanYesFull LayerPlan object. Must include id, title, source, viz, geometry.
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",
-  "layerPlan",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "map_id",
+  "layerPlan"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context: the operation is an append of a pre-built plan object, and the canonical shape is the one the workspace pipeline emits. It stops short of stating failure behavior or whether appending is additive-only vs. merging, but the annotations carry most of that load.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core verb and the NL exclusion come first. The inline field list slightly duplicates the layerPlan schema description, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the required shape, its source, and the spec resource for full details. It does not say what the tool returns on success, which is the remaining small 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by telling the caller where layerPlan comes from — 'the same shape the workspace pipeline emits' with the field list. That is meaningfully more than the schema's bare 'Must include id, title, source, viz, geometry.'

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 ('Append a fully-constructed LayerPlan to an existing workspace') plus the scope constraint ('without going through NL'). This clearly separates it from the sibling mutate_map, which handles the natural-language path.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes natural-language edits to mutate_map and frames this tool as the direct, structured-plan entry point. An agent can decide between the two without opening either schema. The referenced resource showmeonmap://docs/workspace-ops-spec gives a further path for spec details.

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