Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Layout Map

add_layout_map

Adds a map item to a print layout in QGIS at a given position and size (in millimeters).

Instructions

Add a map item to a print layout at specified position and size (in millimeters).

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>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "add_layout_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
widthYes
heightYes
layout_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states the action and units. It does not disclose what happens if the layout does not exist, how coordinates are interpreted (e.g., page origin), or any error conditions. No annotations are provided to compensate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word is necessary and efficient.

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?

Despite having 5 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits critical details like return value, error handling, coordinate system, and behavior when layout does not exist. It is insufficient for a user to fully understand the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds that x, y, width, and height are in millimeters, which is not in the schema. However, it does not clarify the meaning of layout_name or the coordinate system origin. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides some but insufficient additional meaning.

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 adds a map item to a print layout, specifying position and size in millimeters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_layout_label or add_layout_legend, which add different elements.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_layout_picture or other layout item tools. There is no context about prerequisites or limitations.

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