GraphMake

Render infographic

render_infographic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Render GraphMake Script into an infographic image (PNG or SVG). GraphMake Script is a short line-based format, e.g. title "...", kpi "Label" "Value" icon=users, bar_chart "T" { Jan: 42\n Feb: 68 }, timeline { 2024: "Event" "detail" }, style bold and row { ... } for side-by-side blocks; the full syntax is in the GraphMake Script reference. Returns the image and a link that opens it in the GraphMake editor for hand-editing and export. Script errors come back with the line number.

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": {
      "script": "<script>"
    },
    "name": "render_infographic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`width`	No	Optional canvas width in px (max 4000).
`format`	No	png (default) returns an image; svg returns the SVG markup as text, ready to save to a file.
`height`	No	Optional canvas height in px (max 8000).
`script`	Yes	The GraphMake Script to render.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bytes`	Yes	Size of the PNG or SVG in bytes. The image itself is in the content.
`format`	Yes
`editorUrl`	Yes	Opens the result in the free GraphMake editor, where it can be restyled and exported as PNG, SVG or PDF.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "bytes": {
+      "description": "Size of the PNG or SVG in bytes. The image itself is in the content.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "editorUrl": {
+      "description": "Opens the result in the free GraphMake editor, where it can be restyled and exported as PNG, SVG or PDF.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "format": {
+      "enum": [
+        "png",
+        "svg"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "format",
+    "bytes",
+    "editorUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: what is returned (image plus an editor link for hand-editing and export) and how failures surface (script errors returned with the offending line number).

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 core action and output type are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by format examples, then return/error behavior. The middle section is dense and slightly run-on, but each syntactic example earns its place by making the script format concrete rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return shapes need no elaboration, yet the description still usefully covers input format, output artifacts, and error reporting for a 4-parameter tool. The one missing piece is the routing rule against render_template, which is the only plausible ambiguity in this sibling set.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so width/height/format are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes further by illustrating the otherwise opaque `script` parameter with concrete line syntax (title, kpi, bar_chart, timeline, row), which the schema only labels generically as 'the GraphMake Script to render'.

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 verb and resource ('Render GraphMake Script into an infographic image') and clarifies the accepted formats (PNG or SVG). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts with the sibling render_template, so an agent must infer which renderer to pick when a template is involved.

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?

It points to a companion resource ('the full syntax is in the GraphMake Script reference'), which effectively routes the agent to the graphmake_script_reference sibling, and it implies this tool takes raw script rather than a template. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs render_template, list_templates, or get_template, leaving that choice to inference.

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

All GraphMake tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?