qgis-dev-probe-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_layers

Retrieve all layers in the current QGIS project with their IDs, names, types, CRS, and public sources to inspect project structure and verify plugin behavior.

Instructions

Layers in the current project (id, name, type, crs, public source).

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": "list_layers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the summary fields returned (id, name, type, crs, public source), but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what permissions are needed. The return-field hint is useful but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the missing usage and behavioral context.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the scope and return fields, which is adequate. It still leaves gaps around how it relates to inspect_layer and whether the listing is safe/read-only.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any inputs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource and scope ('Layers in the current project') and lists the fields returned, which is more informative than a tautology. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_layer or add_layer beyond the implied listing behavior.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to inspect_layer.

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