Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Layout Scale Bar

add_layout_scalebar

Add a scale bar to a QGIS print layout linked to a specified map item. Configure position, size, and style including single box, double box, or line ticks.

Instructions

Add a scale bar to a print layout, linked to a map item. style e.g. 'Single Box', 'Double Box', 'Line Ticks Up', 'Numeric'.

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>"
    },
    "name": "add_layout_scalebar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
styleNoSingle Box
widthNo
heightNo
layout_nameYes
map_item_idNo

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'add' (a write operation) but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, what happens if parameters are omitted or invalid, or whether the tool modifies the layout in-place or returns something.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences. No fluff. However, it could be restructured to front-load the essential purpose and include critical parameter guidance without expanding length excessively.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and limited description, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error cases, how the scale bar interacts with the map item, or any configuration beyond style examples.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds value for the 'style' parameter by listing examples. Other parameters (x, y, width, height, layout_name, map_item_id) are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 it adds a scale bar to a print layout linked to a map item. The verb 'add' and resource 'scale bar' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like add_layout_label, but the tool name is sufficiently distinct.

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 usage guidelines are provided. It does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_layout_legend), nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring an existing layout and map item.

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