explainChartReturn reader grounding: chart description, communicative intent, and navigable data structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| component | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| grounding | Yes | ||
| surfaceVersion | Yes | ||
| evidenceFragment | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / evidenceFragmentAdded 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 description needs to add only non-obvious behavioral context. It does disclose what the tool returns, adding some value, but it does not clarify edge cases or how inputs affect behavior.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and lists concrete outputs. The term 'reader grounding' is somewhat jargony, but the sentence is appropriately concise.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description leaves the required input parameters unexplained and does not specify how the output relates to the inputs. Given the schema's low coverage and the tool's moderate complexity, this is incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 does not explain the meaning or expected shape of 'component' or 'props'. While the tool's purpose hints that 'component' refers to a chart, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource: reader grounding for a chart, specifying three output aspects: chart description, communicative intent, and navigable data structure. The title 'without pixels' further distinguishes it from visual chart operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use explainChart instead of siblings like auditChart, createChart, getChartSchema, or improveChart. The description implies a use case for explaining a chart's semantic content, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.