add_bookmarkAdd a spatial bookmark to the QGIS project for quick navigation by providing a name and bounding box extent, with optional CRS and group settings.
Add a spatial bookmark to the project for quick navigation. Provide a name and extent (xmin/ymin/xmax/ymax), in crs when given, else the project CRS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crs | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| xmax | Yes | ||
| xmin | Yes | ||
| ymax | Yes | ||
| ymin | Yes | ||
| group | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.0Input schema / properties / crs / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / crs / defaultPrevious value: -"EPSG:4326"New value: +nullInput schema / properties / crs / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.5.0v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses CRS behavior ('in crs when given, else the project CRS') but doesn't mention what happens on duplicate names, error handling, or whether the operation returns a success indicator. Given the sparse behavioral details, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, resource, and essential parameter guidance compactly, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention return behavior, duplicate handling, the 'group' parameter, or any side effects. An agent would have to infer or risk errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 explains the required 'name' and 'extent' (xmin/ymin/xmax/ymax) and clarifies the 'crs' parameter's role. However, it omits the 'group' parameter entirely and doesn't specify units or coordinate format, leaving part of the schema unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('spatial bookmark'), with a purpose ('for quick navigation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bookmarks and remove_bookmark by indicating creation rather than retrieval or deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for quick navigation' implies the use case of saving a location for later access. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_bookmarks or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough. Sibling names reinforce that this is the creation counterpart to get/remove.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.