get_preview_stateUse this when the Szum chart App needs to restore a rendered preview as its current transient or saved view. It is read-only, owner-scoped when authenticated, and hidden from the model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| previewId | Yes | Opaque 16-character chart-preview id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chart | No | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds owner-scoped and hidden-from-model context, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds unique value without unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete and leaves no gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with pattern description. The tool description does not describe the parameter beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'restore a rendered preview as its current transient or saved view.' It is clear and specific, distinguishing it from siblings.
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 provides explicit 'when to use' guidance ('Use this when...'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.