Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Layout Table

add_layout_table

Add an attribute table to a print layout for a vector layer, controlling position, size, and maximum rows displayed.

Instructions

Add an attribute table for a vector layer to a print layout. max_rows caps the number of features shown. 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>",
      "layer_id": "<layer_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_layout_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
widthNo
heightNo
layer_idYes
max_rowsNo
layout_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions max_rows and position/size in mm, but fails to disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires existing layout, or what happens on failure. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise sentences with no superfluous words. First sentence states purpose, second adds key constraints. Ideal length, though could benefit from bullet-style breakdown.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out crucial information such as the structure of the added table, error handling, and required resources. Incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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 description must compensate. It explains max_rows and implies position/size for x,y,width,height, but does not describe layout_name, layer_id, or clarify all numeric units. Partial but insufficient.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'attribute table for a vector layer to a print layout'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_layout_map' or 'add_layout_label' by specifying the type of layout item.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of layout or layer) or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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