QGIS MCP Server

Load Project

load_project

Destructive

Loads a QGIS project from a .qgs or .qgz file, replacing the open project and listing layers with missing sources as unavailable.

Instructions

Load a QGIS project from a .qgs/.qgz file path. Replaces the open project; unsaved changes to it are lost. Layers whose source is missing are kept as unavailable and listed in 'unavailable_layers'.

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": "load_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states that unsaved changes are lost and that missing layers are kept as unavailable and listed, adding significant behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation. This is clear, non-contradictory, and helpful.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral details (project replacement, missing layers) compactly.

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 single-parameter load operation, it covers destructive consequences and layer handling, which are key. It does not mention the return value or error behavior, but the mention of 'unavailable_layers' gives a hint. Overall adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying that the path parameter is a .qgs/.qgz file path, giving meaning that the schema lacks. It doesn't mention validation or file existence, but clarifies the expected format.

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 it loads a QGIS project from a .qgs/.qgz file path, uses a specific verb and resource, and mentions replacing the open project, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_new_project and save_project.

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?

It implies usage for loading an existing project rather than creating a new one, and warns that it replaces the current project. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks a direct exclusion.

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

Deploy Server