Skip to main content
Glama

ShowMeOnMap

by com.showmeonmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove a layer (direct, destructive)

remove_layer
DestructiveIdempotent

Drop a layer from the workspace by id. Strict: removing an already-removed or never-added layer fails. Layer ids do NOT recycle — a removed id cannot be re-added later in the same workspace. GATED: this tool is destructive. Pass confirmed:true to proceed; otherwise a needs_confirmation envelope is returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
map_idYes
layerIdYes
confirmedNoSet to true to confirm this destructive action. If omitted or false, the call returns a needs_confirmation envelope. Layer ids are tombstoned — once removed, the same id cannot be re-added later in this workspace.
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",
-  "layerId",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "map_id",
+  "layerId"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial non-redundant behavior: strict failure on already-removed/never-added layers, tombstoning of ids so they cannot be re-added, and the gated confirmation protocol. This is exactly the extra context structured annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action then strictness, the id-tombstone caveat, and the confirmation gate. No filler; each clause carries actionable information.

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 gated destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation envelope, failure modes, and immutability of removed ids. It stops short of clarifying what map_id/workspace actually refers to, leaving a small gap given the 50% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 50%: confirmed and rationale are documented in the schema, while map_id and layerId are not. The description reinforces the workspace/id scoping and the confirmed gating but adds little new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Drop a layer from the workspace by id" states a specific verb (drop/remove) and resource (layer) with scope (by id). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like add_layer, rename_layer, or remove_annotation, and the strictness/tombstone semantics sharpen the purpose further.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for invocation (must pass confirmed:true, otherwise a needs_confirmation envelope) and states the failure conditions. It does not, however, mention any alternative route such as undo_/redo to reverse a removal, so it stops just short of full when/when-not/alternatives 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