Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Export Layout

export_layout
Idempotent

Export a print layout to file in PDF, PNG, JPG, or SVG format, with adjustable DPI resolution.

Instructions

Export a print layout to file. format: 'pdf', 'png', 'jpg', 'svg'. dpi: resolution (default 300).

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_layout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpiNo
pathYes
formatNopdf
layout_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe re-execution. The description adds format and dpi constraints but omits behavioral details like file overwrite behavior or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is very concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core action. However, it could be slightly clearer by separating format and dpi into a list or structured format.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and only idempotentHint annotation, the description lacks essential context: prerequisites (layout must exist), path constraints, and what happens on success/failure. Sibling tools like create_layout hint at dependencies not addressed here.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining format values and dpi default. However, layout_name and path are not described beyond the schema, leaving their roles implicit.

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 'export' and the resource 'print layout', and the allowed formats are listed. This distinguishes it from sibling layout tools like create_layout or add_layout_map, which do not export.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like export_atlas or export_layer. The description assumes the agent knows to use this for single layout export, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist) or limitations.

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