Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Layout Label

add_layout_label

Add a text label to a print layout in QGIS. Supports dynamic expressions and custom colors.

Instructions

Add a text label to a print layout (mm). text may contain [% expression %] for dynamic content. color is hex (e.g. '#000000').

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_layout_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
textYes
colorNo#000000
widthNo
heightNo
font_sizeNo
layout_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions text can contain dynamic expressions and color format, but lacks details on whether the label replaces existing ones, error handling, permissions, or units for x/y beyond '(mm)'. Significant gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Could be improved with structured bullet points for parameters, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify required layout_name, optional defaults, expression syntax, or behavior when layout is missing. Many important aspects are omitted.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It only covers text (dynamic expressions) and color (hex format), and implicitly x/y via units. Parameters like width, height, font_size, and layout_name are unexplained. Insufficient for 8-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly states it adds a text label to a print layout, using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('text label'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_layout_map or add_layout_legend, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist), and no exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does without context.

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