QGIS MCP Server

Create New Project

create_new_project

Destructive

Create a new empty QGIS project and save it to a specified path, replacing the open project so work starts from a clean file.

Instructions

Create a new empty QGIS project and save it to the given path. Replaces the open project; unsaved changes to it are lost.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "create_new_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, and the description adds concrete detail about what is destroyed: the open project and unsaved changes. It also mentions that the project is saved to the given path, giving the agent a fuller picture of the tool's 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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the destructive consequence is given immediately after, making it easy to scan and process.

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 one-parameter, annotation-supported tool, the description covers the essential behavior, the save destination, and the destructive consequence. It could also mention what happens if the target path already exists or whether a confirmation is required, but the core context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'path' is the destination where the project is saved, which adds value beyond the bare string type, but it does not specify file extension requirements, existing-file behavior, or whether the path should be absolute or relative.

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 a specific action ('Create a new empty QGIS project') and resource (QGIS project), and the phrase 'new empty' distinguishes it from adjacent tools like load_project or save_project. It also names the side effect of replacing the open project, further setting it apart.

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?

The core use case is implied: use this when you want a new empty QGIS project saved to a path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as load_project, so the guidance relies on inference rather than explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server