ShowMeOnMap

Redo a previously-undone op

redo

Advance the workspace cursor by one toward the tail of the ops log, replaying the next op that was previously undone. Calling redo when the cursor is already at the tail (no undone ops to fast-forward) fails rather than silently no-op. Note: any new op applied via apply-op / mutate-map after an undo truncates the redo tail (standard edit-stack semantics).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (which are sparse), description discloses critical behavioral traits: failure instead of silent no-op when no undone ops, and truncation of redo tail upon new operations. This exceeds the minimum provided by annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a note, no wasted words. Front-loaded with core action, then failure condition, then side-effect note.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple redo operation with 2 params and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, failure modes, and side effects, providing all necessary context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Description adds no meaning to either parameter (map_id and rationale). Schema coverage is 50% (rationale described, map_id not), but the description does not compensate for unlisted details, leaving map_id's role implicit.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Advance the workspace cursor' and resource 'the next op that was previously undone'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like undo and mutate_map by referencing the ops log and standard edit-stack semantics.

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?

Description states when redo fails (cursor at tail) and notes that new ops after undo truncate redo tail. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like undo or apply-op, leaving the agent to infer typical usage context.

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?