Teddit

Render a chart

render_chart

Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a chart as a PNG image, with its numbers as text beside it. Either a named chart of a project (report.assistants.mentionRate / citationRate / visibility — one line per assistant over 10 weeks; report.competitors — this week vs last per brand; report.changes — assistants that started/stopped naming; trends.rates / promptCoverage / visibility — the site week by week; trends.wonLost; competitors.trend — you vs top rivals over time; competitors.headToHead; competitor.trend — needs competitorId), or a custom chart from your own data (type line|bar, labels, series with points).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "render_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dark`	No	Draw on a dark background.
`week`	No	A past week for report.* charts, as the date of its Monday (YYYY-MM-DD).
`chart`	No	A named chart of the project; see the description for the list.
`title`	No	A title drawn above the chart.
`width`	No	Width in pixels. Default 900.
`custom`	No	Your own data instead of a named chart: type, labels and series of points.
`height`	No	Height in pixels. Default fits the chart.
`projectId`	No	The project id, from list_projects.
`competitorId`	No	The competitor id (list_competitors); needed for competitor.trend.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses correctly on output: a PNG image plus the underlying numbers rendered as text. That output-format disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether it still needs a data call. It adds nothing on size limits or behavior when both 'chart' and 'custom' are supplied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and output format, then the named-chart catalog. The long parenthetical is dense but each clause carries distinct information and no sentence is redundant; only the packed run-on formatting costs it a point.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes, the output shape, and the conditional id requirements. It does not state mutual exclusivity of 'chart' vs 'custom' or what happens with neither provided, which is the remaining ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema explicitly defers the enum list to the description, so the chart-by-chart explanations (one line per assistant over 10 weeks, this week vs last per brand, etc.) do add real meaning beyond enum names. But custom sub-fields (suffix, stacked, horizontal) and precedence between 'chart' and 'custom' are left entirely to the schema, so it stays near 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Draw a chart as a PNG image') plus an unusual output trait ('with its numbers as text beside it'), which separates it cleanly from data-returning siblings like get_trends and get_dashboard.

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 presents the two modes of use — a named project chart or a custom chart from your own data — and states the per-chart prerequisites ('competitor.trend — needs competitorId', week for report.* charts). It never says when to render a chart versus calling get_trends/get_competitor_report for the raw numbers, which is the one guidance gap.

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

All Teddit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?