Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Export Layer

export_layer
Idempotent

Export vector or raster layers to disk in formats like GeoPackage, Shapefile, or GeoTIFF; reproject to a target CRS, and filter vector features using QGIS expressions.

Instructions

Export vector/raster to disk; format from output_path extension (.gpkg, .shp, .geojson, .tif, ...). target_crs (e.g. 'EPSG:4326') reprojects on export. filter_expression (vector only) exports a subset matching a QGIS 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": {
      "layer_id": "<layer_id>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layer_idYes
target_crsNo
output_pathYes
filter_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?

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true. The description adds key behavioral details: output format derived from extension, reprojection via target_crs, and vector-only filter expression. Missing overwrite behavior, but overall informative.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with main action. Efficient and easily parsed.

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?

The tool is simple: export layer to file. Description covers format, reprojection, and filtering. No mention of return value or error handling, but for this complexity level it's largely complete. Could note filter is vector-only, which it does.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description carries full burden. It explains target_crs and filter_expression with examples, and clarifies output_path extension influences format. layer_id is left implicit but is standard. Good compensation for schema gap.

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 exports vector/raster layers to disk, with format determined by file extension. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_layout or render_map that handle different output types.

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 does not explicitly compare to alternatives but implies usage for file export. The context of siblings makes it clear this is the appropriate tool for exporting layers to disk, though no 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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