Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
QGIS MCP

QGIS MCP

by lefcgis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Set Canvas Extent

set_canvas_extent
Idempotent

Set the visible map area by providing bounding box coordinates (xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax) in the desired CRS.

Instructions

Set the map canvas extent. Coordinates should be in the specified CRS (default: project CRS).

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": {
      "xmin": "<xmin>",
      "ymin": "<ymin>",
      "xmax": "<xmax>",
      "ymax": "<ymax>"
    },
    "name": "set_canvas_extent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
crsNo
xmaxYes
xminYes
ymaxYes
yminYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation indicates idempotentHint=true, meaning repeated calls have same effect. The description adds context about CRS usage but does not disclose other behaviors like validation, side effects, or error handling. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no extra words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key usage note without repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It misses details like valid coordinate ranges, that xmin must be less than xmax, and that the extent replaces the current view.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by stating that coordinates (xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax) should be in the specified CRS and that crs is optional. This adds meaning but lacks details like value constraints, ordering, or units.

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 ('Set the map canvas extent') and the resource ('canvas extent'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_canvas_extent' and 'set_canvas_scale' by specifying 'set' and 'extent'.

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 provides a guideline on coordinate reference system ('Coordinates should be in the specified CRS (default: project CRS)'). However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zoom_to_layer, set_canvas_scale) or mention any prerequisites.

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