Retrieve the input parameters and output definitions for a QGIS Processing algorithm ID such as 'native:buffer', so you can plan, validate, or debug algorithm runs.
Parameter and output definitions of a Processing algorithm (e.g. 'native:buffer').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| algorithm_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does indicate the conceptual return content (parameter and output definitions), but never states that this is a read-only lookup, what happens with an unknown or malformed algorithm_id, or any formatting/error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and includes an example inline. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level. Still missing are the ID format rule (only hinted by example) and any indication of what the returned parameter definitions look like, which an agent needs before invoking run_algorithm.
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?
With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The example 'native:buffer' is genuinely useful because it reveals the required provider:name ID format, which the schema does not convey. However, it does not explain required vs optional algorithm parameters or any other ID syntax constraints.
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 names a specific resource and scope: the parameter and output definitions of a Processing algorithm, with a concrete example ID ('native:buffer'). An agent can distinguish it from list_algorithms (enumerates algorithms) and run_algorithm (executes one). The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as list_algorithms or run_algorithm. The natural workflow (inspect params before running an algorithm) is left entirely to inference. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.