list_marksUse this when choosing or configuring chart mark types. Returns every available mark with its properties and defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| marks | Yes | ||
| shared | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / marks / items / properties / type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "dot",
+ "line",
+ "barY",
+ "barX",
+ "areaY",
+ "areaX",
+ "pie",
+ "text",
+ "ruleX",
+ "ruleY"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "marks": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "specific": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "description",
+ "specific"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "shared": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "shared",
+ "marks"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the read-only and non-destructive nature, consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds that the tool returns properties and defaults, providing full behavioral clarity.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the usage context, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains when to use it and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The schema coverage is 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 that the tool returns every available mark with its properties and defaults, which clearly indicates the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like list_charts or list_themes, but those are for different resources.
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 specifies when to use this tool: 'when choosing or configuring chart mark types.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.