Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Configure Atlas

configure_atlas

Set up a print layout atlas that creates one page per feature from a vector layer. Optionally name, filter, or sort pages using expressions.

Instructions

Configure a print layout's atlas: coverage_layer (vector layer id) drives one page per feature. Optional page_name_expression, filter_expression, sort_expression.

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>",
      "coverage_layer": "<coverage_layer>"
    },
    "name": "configure_atlas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledNo
layout_nameYes
coverage_layerYes
sort_expressionNo
filter_expressionNo
page_name_expressionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It explains core behavior (coverage_layer drives pages, optional expressions) but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites (layout must exist), or error conditions. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence of 25 words, front-loads purpose. No filler, every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no return info. Lacks prerequisites (layout must exist) and error handling. Adequate for a straightforward configuration tool but could include more context given 6 parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains coverage_layer and names three optional expressions but omits required layout_name and enabled. Adds meaning beyond schema for covered params but incomplete.

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 'configure' and the resource 'print layout's atlas'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_atlas by specifying that it configures the atlas, not exports it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for setting up an atlas in a print layout. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tool set.

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