Skip to main content
Glama

GraphMake

by com.graphmake
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Render template

render_template
Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a template filled with your content. "changes" maps field keys from get_template to new values: {"w0.text": "Q3 Sales Review", "w5.labels": ["Jul","Aug","Sep"], "w5.datasets.0.values": [42, 51, 63]}. Fields you leave out keep the template's sample content, so replace all of it. To change how many items a list has, replace the whole list (e.g. "w7.values": [{"label": "A", "value": 40}, ...]); each item keeps the colours of the item it replaces. Returns the image and a link that opens the filled template in the GraphMake editor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTemplate id from list_templates.
formatNopng (default) returns an image; svg returns the SVG markup as text.
changesNoField key -> new value, keys from get_template.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameYes
bytesYesSize of the PNG or SVG in bytes. The image itself is in the content.
widthYesWidth of the returned image in px (tall templates come back narrower).
formatYes
editorUrlYesOpens 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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "width": {
+      "description": "Width of the returned image in px (tall templates come back narrower).",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "name",
+    "format",
+    "bytes",
+    "width",
+    "editorUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the merge semantics (omitted fields retain sample content), the list-replacement rule, the colour-inheritance behaviour of replacement items, and the return payload (image plus editor link). These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then examples. Every sentence carries useful information (merge behaviour, list replacement, return value). The payload examples are dense but justified for a nested-object parameter; slightly more verbosity than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with one nested object and an existing output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the key vocabulary source, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; return-value details are appropriately not duplicated.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantic value the schema lacks: the dotted key syntax ('w0.text', 'w5.datasets.0.values'), how nested list items map, and how to grow/shrink lists. This meaningfully de-risks correct invocation of the nested changes object.

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+resource ('Render a template filled with your content') and backs it with concrete examples of the changes payload. It references get_template for field keys, giving workflow context, but does not distinguish itself from render_infographic, the closest sibling.

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?

The description implies the usage flow (get keys from get_template, then render) and warns that omitted fields keep sample content, which is effectively a 'you must do this' guideline. However it never states when to choose this over render_infographic or open_in_editor, so routing guidance is left implicit.

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

All GraphMake toolsInspect
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