Softbowl SBChart2.0 차트(chart) 라이브러리의 공식 API 문서를 검색해, AI가 정확한 차트 코드를 생성하도록 돕습니다.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: search for APIs, browse by section, retrieve full documentation, and get code examples. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using CamelCase with the 'SBChart' prefix (e.g., searchSBChartAPI, getSBChartExample). No mixing of conventions.
With 4 tools covering search, browse, detail, and example retrieval, the count is well-scoped for a documentation helper server. Not too few or too many.
The tool set covers the main workflows—finding APIs and retrieving documentation/examples. Minor gaps like version info or bulk listing are absent, but core functionality is solid.
getSBChartAPIDetailAInspectGet the full documentation for one SBChart2.0 option/API by exact name: detailed explanation, HTML/JS usage, example, and warnings. Use after searchSBChartAPI. For a chart type's data structure, query its 'dataFormat' entry (e.g. 'Gantt 차트 데이터 포맷'). ⚠️ SBChart2.0 코드/샘플 생성 시 서버 공통지침(표준 골격에서 출발 · chartConfig 리터럴 나열 · 요청 기능만 최소 적용) 준수 — 상세는 서버 instructions 참고.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact option/API name as shown in searchSBChartAPI results (e.g. 'barFormat', 'Gantt 차트 데이터 포맷'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning documentation but does not explicitly disclose side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The warning about server guidelines is relevant but not a behavioral trait of the tool itself.
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 plus a warning. It front-loads purpose but the warning at the end, while important, makes it slightly lengthy. Could be more concise.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a specific example. It is complete enough for this simple tool, though it could mention what happens on invalid input.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating the name must be exact from searchSBChartAPI results, which reinforces the schema but does not add substantial new meaning.
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 clearly states it retrieves full documentation for one SBChart2.0 option/API by exact name, including detailed explanation, HTML/JS usage, example, and warnings. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Use after searchSBChartAPI' and giving a usage pattern for data format queries.
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 explicitly says 'Use after searchSBChartAPI' and provides guidance on querying data structures. It could be stronger by stating when not to use, but the sequential context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getSBChartExampleAInspectFind runnable SBChart2.0 code examples by feature or use case. Returns example code (data + config) for a chart type or option. Use when you want working sample code rather than the API reference. ⚠️ SBChart2.0 코드/샘플 생성 시 서버 공통지침(표준 골격에서 출발 · chartConfig 리터럴 나열 · 요청 기능만 최소 적용) 준수 — 상세는 서버 instructions 참고.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of examples to return. Default 3. | |
| query | Yes | Chart type, feature, or use case (e.g. 'bar chart', 'donut', 'tooltip', 'sankey'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The Korean warning about server instructions is vague and not specific to behavioral traits.
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 plus a Korean note. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Korean note adds context but is not essential for the core function. Overall concise and well-structured.
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 no output schema, the description vaguely mentions 'example code (data + config)' without specifying format, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with two parameters and sibling tools, it lacks sufficient detail to be fully complete.
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%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., examples, constraints, types). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool finds runnable SBChart2.0 code examples by feature/use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getSBChartAPIDetail (API details) and listSBChartAPIs (listing APIs). The verb 'Find' and resource 'code examples' are specific.
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 explicitly says 'Use when you want working sample code rather than the API reference', providing clear context for when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not state when not to use or list alternatives explicitly, but the contrast is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listSBChartAPIsAInspectBrowse the SBChart2.0 API surface by section and/or category. Call with no argument to get sections and their categories; filter by section or category to narrow. Use to explore what chart types and options exist. ⚠️ SBChart2.0 코드/샘플 생성 시 서버 공통지침(표준 골격에서 출발 · chartConfig 리터럴 나열 · 요청 기능만 최소 적용) 준수 — 상세는 서버 instructions 참고.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Optionally restrict to one section. | |
| category | No | Optionally filter to a specific category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: browsing API surface, returning sections and categories, and filtering options. It does not mention side effects or return format, but as a read-only list operation, this is sufficient. The warning about code generation is peripheral but not contradictory.
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 main description is concise, but the appended warning about SBChart2.0 code generation guidelines is tangential and reduces focus. Removing or moving the warning would improve conciseness.
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 list tool with good parameter schema and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the browsing purpose, input behavior, and result type (sections and categories). It could mention output format, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent.
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?
Both parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of no arguments vs filtering, which is not in the schema. This extra context raises the score.
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 clearly states the tool browses the SBChart2.0 API surface and explains behavior with and without arguments. It distinguishes from siblings like getSBChartAPIDetail (detail of a specific API) and searchSBChartAPI (search across APIs) by focusing on listing/browsing sections and categories.
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 clear guidance on when to use: to explore chart types and options. It explains using no arguments to get sections/categories, or filtering by section/category. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like searchSBChartAPI or mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSBChartAPIAInspectSearch SBChart2.0 chart API and option documentation by keyword. Returns matching entries with name, section, summary, and syntax. Start here to find which option or chart type fits, then call getSBChartAPIDetail for full details or getSBChartExample for code. ⚠️ SBChart2.0 코드/샘플 생성 시 서버 공통지침(표준 골격에서 출발 · chartConfig 리터럴 나열 · 요청 기능만 최소 적용) 준수 — 상세는 서버 instructions 참고.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. Default 5. | |
| query | Yes | Keyword to search: a chart type, option, or feature (e.g. 'bar', 'tooltip', 'gantt', 'axis'). | |
| section | No | Optionally restrict results to one section. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description suggests read-only search and lists return fields. Does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or side-effect absence, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Reasonably concise with main purpose upfront. The additional Korean warning about code generation guidelines adds minor clutter but does not severely hinder readability.
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 no output schema, description adequately specifies return fields. Lacks details on pagination or rate limits, but for a simple search tool with explicit sibling links, it is largely complete.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about keyword examples and the overall search purpose but does not provide deeper semantics beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it searches SBChart2.0 documentation by keyword, returns specific fields, and distinguishes from siblings by recommending where to start.
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?
Explicitly says 'Start here' and suggests subsequent tools (getSBChartAPIDetail, getSBChartExample), providing clear when-to-use guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but differentiation is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
