Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Processing Algorithms

list_processing_algorithms
Read-only

Search for QGIS processing algorithms by keyword and provider. Returns algorithm IDs, names, and providers.

Instructions

Search for processing algorithms by keyword and/or provider. Returns id, name, provider for each match.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_processing_algorithms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchNo
providerNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the return structure (id, name, provider). This goes beyond annotations, though no additional behavioral traits like pagination or limits are disclosed.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loads the action and provides immediate context. Every part is necessary.

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 (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers search criteria and return fields. Missing details like ordering or error handling but acceptable for a straightforward list/search tool.

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 the description must compensate. It maps 'keyword' to the search parameter and 'provider' to the provider parameter, but does not explain expected formats, constraints, or behavior (e.g., are searches case-sensitive?). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the tool searches for processing algorithms by keyword and/or provider, and returns id, name, and provider. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_processing_providers (lists providers) or execute_processing (runs algorithms).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of get_processing_providers for listing providers or execute_processing for running algorithms, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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