ShowMeOnMap

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

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`newLayerId`	Yes	New id. Must be unique within the workspace.
`oldLayerId`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that the operation re-keys filter chains, preserves insertion order, and enforces uniqueness constraints (including tombstoned ids). Annotations provide idempotentHint=true but the description adds context about side effects.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it concise and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or success indicators. However, for a rename operation, the return is likely minimal. The description covers key constraints and side effects, but could mention expected response or error conditions.

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 description coverage is 50% (newLayerId and rationale have descriptions in schema). The description clarifies the purpose of oldLayerId and newLayerId ('from oldLayerId to newLayerId') and reinforces the uniqueness requirement, adding meaning beyond the schema for these parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Change a layer's id from oldLayerId to newLayerId'), specifying the verb (rename) and resource (layer id). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_layer or remove_layer by focusing on renaming identifiers.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context like prerequisites or conditions where renaming is appropriate, and does not mention when not to use it.

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?