qgis-dev-probe-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

dump_widgets

Inspect a QGIS window’s widget tree to map UI hierarchy and child geometry for plugin debugging; filter by visibility or named widgets to reduce noise.

Instructions

Dump the widget tree of a window (selector: objectName or title).

Hidden widgets are skipped by default (visible_only); use only_named to cut noise further. Geometry of child widgets is relative to the parent; window geometry is in screen coordinates.

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": {
      "window": "<window>"
    },
    "name": "dump_widgets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	Yes
`max_items`	No
`only_named`	No
`visible_only`	No
`include_internal`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that hidden widgets are skipped by default, that only_named reduces noise, and how child vs. window geometry coordinates differ, but it does not state the output format, read-only/safety profile, or behavior of max_items/include_internal.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation. Each sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides solid purpose and some behavioral guidance. It is not complete because it omits the output shape, max_items/include_internal semantics, and any routing to sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It explains the window selector, visible_only default behavior, and only_named, but leaves max_items and include_internal unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Dump the widget tree of a window.' It also names the selector form (objectName or title), making it readily distinguishable from sibling operations such as set_widget, click_widget, and list_windows.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('dump the widget tree of a window') and by guidance on hidden widgets and only_named. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_windows, inspect_layer, or set_widget.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.