Skip to main content
Glama

ShowMeOnMap

by com.showmeonmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rename a layer (direct)

rename_layer
Idempotent

Change a layer's id from oldLayerId to newLayerId. Re-keys any existing filter chain and preserves insertion order among sibling layers. Strict: newLayerId must not already be in use (current OR tombstoned) in this workspace. Subsequent ops must reference the layer by its new id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
map_idYes
rationaleNoOptional short label (≤300 chars) for the map edit history, e.g. "add wildfire layer". Omit it to send nothing beyond the tool arguments.
newLayerIdYesNew id. Must be unique within the workspace.
oldLayerIdYes

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",
-  "oldLayerId",
-  "newLayerId",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "map_id",
+  "oldLayerId",
+  "newLayerId"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real side effects: the existing filter chain is re-keyed, sibling insertion order is preserved, uniqueness is enforced against both live and tombstoned ids, and later operations must use the new id. That is exactly the behavioral context the 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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the side effects and constraints. Every clause contributes operational information an agent needs before calling.

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 four-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, uniqueness precondition, and follow-on id requirement. It leaves the optional rationale parameter and failure-mode behavior unaddressed, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 50%, so the description must carry weight, and it does for the two critical parameters: it defines the old/new id relationship and extends the schema's 'unique within the workspace' note with the crucial 'current OR tombstoned' qualification. map_id and rationale receive no description-level treatment, but the added precision on the re-keying params goes beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Change a layer's id from oldLayerId to newLayerId') and immediately scopes it with the exact inputs involved. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like add_layer, remove_layer, and restyle_layer, which operate on different aspects of a layer.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'Strict: newLayerId must not already be in use (current OR tombstoned)' line gives a precondition that steers correct invocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., remove_layer + add_layer). An agent can infer the context but is not routed.

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