Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Layout Picture

add_layout_picture

Insert a picture or SVG graphic into a print layout. Define the image path and set its position and size in millimeters.

Instructions

Add a picture or SVG (logo, north arrow) to a print layout. path is an image or SVG file path. Position/size in mm.

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "add_layout_picture"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
pathYes
widthNo
heightNo
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?

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the function without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting existing items), error handling for invalid paths, or permission requirements. The unit mention (mm) is helpful but insufficient.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the core purpose with examples, the second clarifies the path and units. No fluff or repetition.

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 absence of output schema and the tool's complexity (6 parameters), the description is too minimal. It omits critical context like the need for a pre-existing layout, what happens on failure, and the overall effect on the layout. The agent would need to guess or fail.

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 meaning for the 'path' parameter (image or SVG file) and notes that position/size are in millimeters, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the other parameters (x, y, width, height, layout_name), leaving gaps despite 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Add a picture or SVG') and the target resource ('to a print layout'). It also provides concrete examples (logo, north arrow) and specifies file types, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling layout tools.

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 like add_layout_label or add_layout_map. There is no discussion of prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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