Semiotic

Create and prove a chart

createChart

Read-onlyIdempotent

Select, validate, diagnose, render, and prove a static-data Semiotic chart. This is the default public workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes
`props`	No	Optional props to merge over the selected chart recipe.
`theme`	No
`intent`	No
`audience`	No
`component`	No	Optional chart preference; the fit-ranked result remains authoritative.
`fieldRoles`	No	Per-field semantic or exact encoding-role hints used before chart ranking.
`identifiers`	No	Fields that identify records and must not be used as visual encodings or measures.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`component`	No
`evidenceGate`	No
`surfaceVersion`	Yes
`evidenceEnvelope`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / evidenceEnvelope

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / evidenceGate

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fieldRoles

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "enum": [
+          "identifier",
+          "measure",
+          "dimension",
+          "temporal",
+          "x",
+          "y",
+          "size",
+          "category",
+          "series",
+          "time",
+          "ignore"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "items": {
+          "enum": [
+            "identifier",
+            "measure",
+            "dimension",
+            "temporal",
+            "x",
+            "y",
+            "size",
+            "category",
+            "series",
+            "time",
+            "ignore"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Per-field semantic or exact encoding-role hints used before chart ranking.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / identifiers

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Fields that identify records and must not be used as visual encodings or measures.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the internal workflow steps (validation, diagnosis, proof) and constraining input to static data, which helps an agent anticipate what the tool will do before invoking it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action verbs and closes with a clear default-workflow label. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with eight parameters, nested objects, and four sibling tools, the description gives the default-context marker but no parameter guidance or sibling-selection conditions. Annotations and partial schema descriptions carry a lot of the burden, leaving moderate gaps that an agent must resolve through exploration.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50% (four of eight parameters have descriptions), and the description itself names no parameters or how they map to chart selection. It adds only the high-level hint that the data should be static, leaving complex fields like fieldRoles and audience largely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific multi-step workflow—select, validate, diagnose, render, and prove—over a defined resource: static-data Semiotic charts. This clearly separates it from the sibling audit/explain/schema/improve tools by presenting it as the default all-in-one chart workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"This is the default public workflow" explicitly signals default choice among siblings. However, it does not enumerate when a sibling such as improveChart or auditChart should be preferred, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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

All Semiotic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a charting focused server, covering the core workflows without redundancy or bloat. Each tool provides a necessary function.

Completeness4/5

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.

Create and prove a chart

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources