ShowMeOnMap

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

Name	Required	Description
`map_id`	Yes
`layerId`	Yes
`confirmed`	No	Set 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.
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description accurately states that removing an already-removed layer fails, which contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation indicating the operation should have the same effect on multiple calls. This contradiction leads to a score of 1 as per rubric.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, constraints, and confirmation requirement with zero waste. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the essential context: action, failure modes, tombstoning, and destructive gate. It lacks details on successful outcome or return envelope, but for a simple destructive tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% with descriptions only for confirmed and rationale. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning 'by id' for layerId, and does not explain map_id. For a low-coverage scenario, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Drop a layer from the workspace by id' clearly states the action and resource. The title also reinforces purpose. Among sibling tools, there is no other layer removal tool, so it is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use (to remove a layer) and important constraints: failure if already removed or never-added, and the need for confirmation. It does not compare with alternatives, but no direct alternative exists, so it is sufficient.

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?