Turn a description of your team into an editable org chart. Free, no signup.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: create_org_chart builds a chart from a list, while read_org_chart extracts people and reporting lines from an existing chart link. An agent can easily choose between them based on whether it needs to create or inspect a chart.
Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_org_chart and read_org_chart. The convention is predictable and directly reflects the operation and resource.
Two tools are slightly thin for a general-purpose server, but the domain is narrowly scoped to org chart creation and reading. The set earns its place without extraneous operations.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: creating a chart and reading it back for updates. Updating is handled indirectly by editing the read result and recreating, and deletion or listing is absent, but those gaps are minor and workable given the link-based workflow.
Create an org chart from a list of people and get a link that opens it in the SimplOrg editor. Up to 500 people. The link stays valid for 30 days; after opening it the user can save or share the chart from SimplOrg.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| people | Yes | Everyone on the chart, in any order. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful behavior: the output is a link, that link expires after 30 days, and the user must open it to save or share the chart. Remaining gaps are auth/permission requirements and what happens on partial or duplicate data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The 'Up to 500 people' sentence duplicates the schema maxItems, which is the only redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (a 30-day editor link) and the post-open workflow. For a single-parameter create tool this covers what an agent needs, missing only permission/auth context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the nested items schema already documents id, name, title, department, reports_to, and also_reports_to in depth. The description only restates the array ('from a list of people', 'Up to 500 people'), adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource ('Create an org chart') plus the resulting artifact (a link that opens in the SimplOrg editor), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_org_chart, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and the create/link framing, and the 500-person limit gives a rough scope boundary. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over read_org_chart, no prerequisites, and no error or failure conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the people and reporting lines from a SimplOrg chart link (an AI-created link or a share link). Use it to update an existing chart: edit the returned list and pass it to create_org_chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | A simplorg.com link to the chart. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the accepted input forms ('an AI-created link or a share link') and what the call returns (the people and reporting lines list). It omits failure behavior for invalid or expired links, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action and input scope are front-loaded, and the follow-on workflow is deferred to the second sentence where it belongs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does the work of indicating the return shape ('the returned list' of people and reporting lines) and the downstream consumer. For a single-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; only error/edge-case behavior for bad links is unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by enumerating the accepted link kinds (AI-created link vs share link), which the schema's terse 'A simplorg.com link to the chart' does not convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the people and reporting lines from a SimplOrg chart link'), and explicitly names the sibling tool create_org_chart that consumes its output. An agent can distinguish it from create_org_chart without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit usage path: use it when updating an existing chart, then edit the returned list and pass it to create_org_chart. The alternative tool is named and the condition that selects it is stated, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
create_org_chartread_org_chartAI-powered diagrams, mind maps, flowcharts on a free unlimited collaborative whiteboard
Visual AI for strategic thinking — SWOT, flowcharts, mindmaps, Gantt diagrams as polished SVG.
Create scheduled Gantt charts with critical path from a plain-language plan — no account or key.
Build and edit real mind maps from a chat: brainstorm, plan, organise notes. Free, never metered.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
