add_layout_labelPlace a text label on a QGIS print layout, including dynamic [% expression %] support and configurable color, size, and position.
Add a text label to a print layout (mm). text may contain [% expression %] for dynamic content. color is hex (e.g. '#000000').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | #000000 | |
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| font_size | No | ||
| layout_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions text can contain dynamic expressions and color format, but lacks details on whether the label replaces existing ones, error handling, permissions, or units for x/y beyond '(mm)'. Significant gaps remain.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Could be improved with structured bullet points for parameters, but it is concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify required layout_name, optional defaults, expression syntax, or behavior when layout is missing. Many important aspects are omitted.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only covers text (dynamic expressions) and color (hex format), and implicitly x/y via units. Parameters like width, height, font_size, and layout_name are unexplained. Insufficient for 8-parameter tool.
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?
Description clearly states it adds a text label to a print layout, using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('text label'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_layout_map or add_layout_legend, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist), and no exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.