Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP Server

QGIS MCP Server

by awheeler262
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Render Map

render_map
Idempotent

Render the current QGIS map canvas to an image, with optional file saving.

Instructions

Render the current map canvas to an image. Returns the image inline so you can see it. Optionally saves to a file path on disk.

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": "render_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
widthNo
heightNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the image is returned inline, which is useful behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects beyond the optional file save, nor does it describe the format of the returned image.

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, with two sentences. The first sentence covers the core action and return value, the second adds optional behavior. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the image is returned inline, but lacks details on format (e.g., base64, blob) or how to handle it. There is no differentiation from the similar sibling 'get_canvas_screenshot'. The description is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions the 'path' parameter for optional save, leaving 'width' and 'height' unexplained. While their roles are somewhat obvious, the description should still provide context, especially for missing schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool renders the current map canvas to an image and returns it inline, with an optional save to disk. This sets a clear purpose, but it could be more explicit in distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_canvas_screenshot' which may have similar functionality.

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 like 'get_canvas_screenshot'. It does not specify prerequisites or context-dependent usage, leaving the agent without decision support.

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