qgis-dev-probe-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_info

Returns QGIS, Python, and Qt version details, platform, profile directory, current project, and probe home/output paths to verify the live QGIS environment.

Instructions

QGIS/Python/Qt versions, platform, profile dir, project, probe home and output dirs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists what information is surfaced but never states that the operation is read-only/safe, whether it has side effects, what the return structure looks like, or whether it may be slow. The listing of fields is useful context but falls well short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence listing the returned items, with the most important version/platform information front-loaded. It is telegraphic but wastes no words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, enumerating the returned data categories is the key missing piece and is largely covered. However, the description omits the return format/structure and any behavioral notes, leaving a modest gap for an agent deciding whether to rely on this tool for diagnostics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to explain about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the data returned (QGIS/Python/Qt versions, platform, profile dir, project, probe home and output dirs), which implies an environment/diagnostic info retrieval tool. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb/resource framing and does not distinguish it from sibling diagnostic tools like ping. Purpose is inferable but not stated crisply.

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 call this versus alternatives such as ping, read_log, or list_layers. The diagnostic nature is implied by the listed fields, but there are no explicit use-case cues or exclusions.

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