Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Remove Layer

remove_layer
Destructive

Delete a layer from the current QGIS project by specifying its layer ID. This operation is irreversible.

Instructions

Remove a layer from the project by its layer ID. This is irreversible.

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": "remove_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layer_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, and the description adds 'This is irreversible,' reinforcing the irreversible nature. No contradictions, but it could mention other behavioral aspects like prerequisites or cascading effects.

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 two short sentences with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action and its irreversible nature. It is mostly complete, though it could hint at prerequisites like layer existence.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by its layer ID' without specifying format or how to obtain the ID. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type and name.

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 action (remove a layer), the resource (layer), and how (by its layer ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or delete_features, which deal with duplication or feature deletion, not layer removal.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. However, for a simple destructive tool, the purpose is clear enough and there is no direct alternative among siblings, so it is adequate but could be improved.

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