getChartSchemaReturn canonical Semiotic prop-schema guidance for code editing and advanced configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| component | No | ||
| renderable | No | ||
| accessibility | No | ||
| surfaceVersion | Yes | ||
| behaviorContracts | No | ||
| availableComponents | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "accessibility": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "chartContainer": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "directProps": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "directProps",
+ "chartContainer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "availableComponents": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "renderable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "renderable"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "behaviorContracts": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "component": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "renderable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "component-list",
+ "component-schema",
+ "unknown-component"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "surfaceVersion": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "surfaceVersion"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds context by specifying that the output is 'canonical' guidance for Semiotic props, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.
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 that front-loads the core action ('Return...') and immediately adds purpose. It avoids redundancy and every phrase contributes meaning, making it 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered, and annotations address safety. However, the description does not explain the optional 'component' parameter or the exact scope of 'chart schema,' leaving a notable gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema lists a single 'component' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to infer the meaning of 'component' from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.
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 clearly states that it returns 'canonical Semiotic prop-schema guidance,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings (audit, create, explain, improve) by focusing on schema retrieval for code editing and advanced configuration.
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 phrase 'for code editing and advanced configuration' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions under which other tools would be more appropriate.
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.