Skip to main content
Glama
nkarasiak

QGIS MCP

by nkarasiak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Run Model

run_model

Execute QGIS Processing models by ID or file path. Supply model inputs as parameters and choose an ellipsoid to control distance and area measurement accuracy.

Instructions

Run a Processing model by registered id (e.g. 'model:myflow') or by a .model3 file path. 'parameters' maps the model's input names to values (layer ids/paths, numbers, etc.). ellipsoid: ellipsoid for distance/area measurements (e.g. 'EPSG:7030' for WGS 84, 'NONE' for planimetric); default is the project's.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYes
ellipsoidNo
parametersNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / ellipsoid
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
  2. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose execution behavior. It only mentions parameter mapping and ellipsoid default, but doesn't state whether the model runs synchronously, returns results, or modifies project state. No side effects or error behavior are described.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and parameter details are compactly integrated with concrete examples.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of running a model and the presence of async siblings, the description omits critical context: whether execution is blocking, how output is delivered, and how this differs from start_processing_job. Missing output schema further compounds the gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains all three parameters: model (id or path), parameters (input name-to-value mapping), and ellipsoid (with examples and default). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States the specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource (Processing model) and enumerates two identification methods (registered id or .model3 path). It also distinguishes from siblings like execute_processing by emphasizing model execution specifically.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over close siblings like execute_processing, start_processing_job, or execute_processing_batch. It explains input formats but doesn't clarify use cases or 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