Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Delete Features

delete_features
Destructive

Remove features from a QGIS layer by providing feature IDs or an expression filter. Specify either fids list or expression string to target deletions.

Instructions

Delete features by feature IDs or expression filter. Provide either fids (list of ints) or expression (string), not both.

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": {
      "layer_id": "<layer_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_features"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fidsNo
layer_idYes
expressionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the two targeting methods and the mutual exclusivity constraint. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful behavioral context.

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 is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of destructiveHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the deletion methods and constraint, though it could mention the response or safety confirmations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the relationship between fids and expression (mutually exclusive) and their types. It does not mention the required layer_id parameter, but the core semantic gap is addressed.

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 tool's action (delete features) and the two methods to specify which features (by IDs or expression). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_layer and remove_bookmark by specifying 'features' as the target.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to delete features) and the rule to provide either fids or expression, not both. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for non-destructive operations.

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