szum

Rename chart

rename_chart

Use this when the user wants to change a saved chart's library title without changing its config, publication state, or public URLs; requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Opaque 32-character saved-chart id
`title`	Yes	New saved-chart title; trimmed and limited to 200 characters

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 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable detail: it only changes the library title, leaving config, publication state, and public URLs unchanged. It also explicitly states authentication requirement. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the usage trigger ('Use this when...'). Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, scope, and authentication requirement. Output schema exists, so no need to describe return values. Minor omission: does not mention whether the operation is synchronous or if it returns the updated chart, but output schema likely covers that.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new information about parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides (id pattern, title length limit). However, it does clarify the context of 'id' as the saved-chart id and that the title is for the library. This adds marginal value, so score remains at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: renaming a saved chart's library title. It specifies the verb ('change a saved chart's library title') and the resource ('saved chart'), and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it does NOT change (config, publication state, public URLs).

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?

The description starts with 'Use this when...' providing explicit guidance for when to use the tool. It mentions requirement of authentication. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context makes it clear this is for simple renames, distinguishing it from update_chart or other operations.

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?