Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Memory Layer

create_memory_layer

Create a temporary vector layer in memory with specified geometry type and optional field definitions for intermediate data processing without saving to disk.

Instructions

Create a new in-memory vector layer. geometry_type: Point, LineString, Polygon, MultiPoint, MultiLineString, MultiPolygon. fields: [{name, type}] where type is integer, double, string, date, datetime.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "geometry_type": "<geometry_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_memory_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
crsNoEPSG:4326
nameYes
fieldsNo
geometry_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'create' indicating a write operation, but fails to disclose permissions, side effects (e.g., memory usage), or whether the layer persists beyond the session. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences pack essential information about the tool's purpose and parameter constraints without unnecessary words. No redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return value or behavior after creation. It does not mention whether the layer becomes active, how to reference it, or error conditions. The tool is simple but still lacks completeness for a confident invocation.

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?

Description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating valid geometry types and specifying the fields format. However, it omits description for 'crs' and 'name' parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but is 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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new in-memory vector layer' with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'in-memory vector layer'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_vector_layer' which adds file-based layers.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies in-memory usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'add_vector_layer' or when not to use it. No guidance on context or prerequisites.

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