Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP Server

QGIS MCP Server

by awheeler262
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Execute Processing Batch

execute_processing_batch

Run a QGIS processing algorithm multiple times with different parameter sets in one batch, returning per-run results with status.

Instructions

Run one algorithm once per parameter dict in 'parameters_list'. Returns a per-run result with index and success/error status. Use for applying the same operation over many inputs in a single round-trip.

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": {
      "algorithm": "<algorithm>",
      "parameters_list": "<parameters_list>"
    },
    "name": "execute_processing_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
algorithmYes
parameters_listYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns per-run result with index and success/error status, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or limits. Adequate but minimal.

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 the core action and result. No superfluous text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify algorithm sources, error handling, or dict constraints, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond naming 'parameter dict' and 'parameters_list'. It does not explain the 'algorithm' string or expected structure of dict items, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 executes one algorithm per parameter dict in a list, returning a per-run result with index and status. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'execute_processing' which likely handles single runs.

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 explicitly says 'Use for applying the same operation over many inputs in a single round-trip,' providing clear context. It does not list exclusions or alternatives but implies batch usage.

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