auditChartRun design diagnostics plus accessibility and mobile audits, returning prioritized structured findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| viewportWidth | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| evidenceGate | No | ||
| surfaceVersion | Yes | ||
| evidenceEnvelope | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / evidenceEnvelopeAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / evidenceGateAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about returning prioritized structured findings, but it does little beyond that, such as clarifying scope limits or prerequisites.
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?
The description is a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope and immediately clarifies the return value format.
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?
The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety behavior, but the required input parameters are completely unexplained. Given that there are two required parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without extra knowledge.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the required parameters component and props, or the optional viewportWidth. An agent is left with only parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correctly constructing an audit call.
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?
The description names a specific verb ("Run"), a clear resource (chart audits), and a concrete scope (design diagnostics plus accessibility and mobile audits). It also states that the tool returns prioritized structured findings, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like createChart and explainChart.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool—when an existing chart needs design, accessibility, or mobile auditing—but it never explicitly says when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like improveChart. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of chart work: creation, auditing, explanation, schema reference, and improvement. There is no overlap in primary purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-first camelCase pattern (auditChart, createChart, explainChart, getChartSchema, improveChart). The slight deviation of 'getChartSchema' is still verb-first and aligns with the pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a charting focused server, covering the core workflows without redundancy or bloat. Each tool provides a necessary function.
The tool surface covers create, analyze, explain, and improve workflows, with schema access for advanced config. Missing explicit update/delete operations is acceptable as charts are typically immutable configurations, and improvements are handled via improveChart.