QGIS MCP Server

Remove Layout

remove_layout

Destructive

Removes a print layout from the QGIS project by layout name, clearing layouts you no longer need so the project stays organized and current.

Instructions

Remove a print layout from the project.

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": {
      "layout_name": "<layout_name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`layout_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation, confirming removal is destructive. However, it does not add further behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as whether removal is permanent or if confirmation is required. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence of 8 words that immediately conveys the action and target. No redundancy, no unnecessary detail. Perfectly front-loaded 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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and destructiveHint present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks notes on error handling, prerequisites, or what happens on success. A slightly richer description would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter layout_name. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the name implies. It fails to add value by clarifying required format (e.g., exact name) or consequences of providing a non-existent name.

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?

Description states 'Remove a print layout from the project.' This is a specific verb (Remove) and resource (print layout) with context (from the project), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_layout, export_layout, and list_layouts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist) or when not to use it. No comparison to similar tools like delete or remove operations.

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

Deploy Server