QC Database MCP Server

list_map_item_schemas

List all map item schemas in a project to get their IDs, which are needed to create map items with custom fields.

Instructions

List the map item schemas available in this project. A schema (e.g. 'Weld') defines the custom fields a map item carries - you need its id to create one.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_map_item_schemas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists schemas (read operation) and explains what a schema is. It does not mention side effects, but it is a simple list with no parameters, and an output schema exists to document return structure. Additional details about permissions or pagination are not needed.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides critical context and usage guidance. No redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, provides an example, and links to a use case (creating a map item). It could mention the need for an active project context, but the phrase 'in this project' hints at it, and sibling tools include project selection.

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?

No parameters exist (empty input schema), so no parameter documentation is required. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description adds value by explaining the context and meaning of the schemas.

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 tool lists map item schemas with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('map item schemas'), provides an example ('Weld'), and explains the purpose (needed to create a map item). It distinguishes from siblings as no other sibling lists schemas.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: before creating a map item to get the schema id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no direct sibling exists for this function. The context hint 'available in this project' is useful.

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