ShowMeOnMap

Save a named checkpoint (direct)

tag

Label the current workspace state with a user-supplied name. The label is mirrored into workspace.meta.tags so UIs can render a named-revision history. Tagging the same label twice is idempotent — no error, no duplicate entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Checkpoint label, e.g. "before EV layer added" or "v1.0".
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description claims idempotence for same labels, but annotations set 'idempotentHint' to false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also mentions mirroring into workspace.meta.tags, but the safety profile is inconsistent.

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 concise sentences with no waste. First states purpose, second adds UI detail, third clarifies idempotency. Front-loaded efficiently.

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?

The description covers the operation's effect and side-effect (mirroring) but does not describe the return value or error handling. Given no output schema, more context on response would be helpful. The contradiction also undermines reliability.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'name' and 'rationale' (audit-log purpose) but not for 'map_id'. The mention of 'current workspace' helps contextualize map_id, but schema already covers it minimally.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: labeling the current workspace state with a user-supplied name and mirroring it for UI history. It is distinct from siblings like 'add_annotation' or 'build_map'.

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 vs. alternatives, such as when to tag vs. add an annotation. No explicit when-not-to-use information.

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?