qgis-dev-probe-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_layer

Remove a layer from the QGIS project by its id or unique name. Use it to clear an unwanted or stale layer before inspecting or verifying plugin behavior.

Instructions

Remove a layer from the project by id or unique name.

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": {
      "layer": "<layer>"
    },
    "name": "remove_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`layer`	Yes

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 burden. It doesn't state whether removal is permanent/undoable, what happens if the layer doesn't exist, or whether permissions or unsaved changes affect it — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence, verb-first and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits irreversibility, failure modes on unknown layers, and return/confirmation behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates partially by clarifying the single 'layer' parameter accepts either an id or a unique name. It stops short of describing id/name format or matching behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a layer) and adds the lookup key ('by id or unique name'). It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like add_layer and list_layers, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as add_layer or inspect_layer, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is inferable but no routing guidance is given.

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