szum

Get chart

get_chart

Read-only

Use this when the user identifies a saved chart by id and wants to view it or retrieve its metadata and URLs. Displays the published chart when available and does not return its config; requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Opaque 32-character saved-chart id

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Opaque 32-character saved-chart id
`view`	Yes
`title`	Yes	Saved chart title
`source`	Yes	Chart origin; an open set of string values
`editUrl`	Yes
`embedUrl`	Yes	Interactive-embed URL
`imageUrl`	Yes	Rendered-image URL
`configUrl`	Yes	Owner-only chart-config endpoint
`createdAt`	Yes	ISO-8601 creation timestamp
`manageUrl`	Yes
`sizeBytes`	Yes	Compressed size of the stored published config, excluding drafts; 0 means no published config has been stored yet
`updatedAt`	Yes	ISO-8601 last-update timestamp
`publishedAt`	Yes	ISO-8601 publish timestamp, or null when public URLs are dark

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description focuses on additional context: 'Displays the published chart when available', 'does not return its config', and 'requires authentication'. These add value beyond annotations, though error handling is not mentioned.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: use case, behavior (published chart, no config), and auth requirement. Extremely efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple single-parameter input schema, existing output schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (metadata and URLs) and what it doesn't (config), and mentions the authentication requirement.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is fully described with type, pattern, and description. The description adds no further parameter information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a verb ('view', 'retrieve') and resource ('saved chart by id'), and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it does not return the config, which differentiates it from get_chart_config.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user identifies a saved chart by id and wants to view it or retrieve metadata and URLs') and implicitly excludes cases needing config or without an id. Could be improved by adding an explicit 'do not use if...' statement, but it is still clear.

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

All szum 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_chart and get_chart_config are both retrieval-by-id operations that require careful reading to distinguish metadata/URLs from config. Additionally, get_preview_state is somewhat cryptic despite its description, but overall overlap is minimal.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 13 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., delete_chart, get_chart_config, list_themes). There are no deviations or mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and coherent.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for a charting service. Each tool serves a distinct role in the workflow (reference, validation, CRUD, rendering), and the count is neither sparse nor overwhelming, fitting within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full chart lifecycle: create (save_chart), read (get_chart, get_chart_config, list_charts), update (update_chart, rename_chart), and delete (delete_chart). It also includes validation, rendering, reference data (examples, marks, themes), and preview state restoration, addressing practical needs. Minor gaps like explicit draft management are indirectly handled through update_chart's safeguards.

Resources

Need Help?