Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP Server

QGIS MCP Server

by awheeler262
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Execute Code

execute_code
Destructive

Execute any PyQGIS code for custom operations not available in other tools. Access QgsProject, iface, and core QGIS classes; returns stdout and stderr.

Instructions

Execute arbitrary PyQGIS code. Use for operations not covered by other tools. Has access to QgsProject, iface, and core QGIS classes. Returns stdout/stderr.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "execute_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so description adds value by mentioning access to QgsProject, iface, and core QGIS classes, and that it returns stdout/stderr. But it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., modifying project state beyond code execution). The added context is moderate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 tool with high complexity and a single parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, distinction from siblings, environment, and output. It could mention limitations or security implications, but annotations cover destructive nature.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that the 'code' parameter is arbitrary PyQGIS code, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type: string. This is clear, though it could be more specific about Python syntax expectations.

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 'Execute arbitrary PyQGIS code' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Use for operations not covered by other tools.' The title 'Execute Code' aligns well.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use for operations not covered by other tools.' This implies when to use and that alternatives exist for covered operations. However, it does not explicitly list scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools