Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Fishbone Diagram

generate_fishbone_diagram
Read-only

Generate a fishbone diagram chart to uses a fish skeleton, like structure to display the causes or effects of a core problem, with the problem as the fish head and the causes/effects as the fish bones. It suits problems that can be split into multiple related factors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "generate_fishbone_diagram"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for fishbone diagram chart which is a hierarchical structure, such as, { name: 'main topic', children: [{ name: 'topic 1', children: [{ name: 'subtopic 1-1' }] }] }, and the maximum depth is 3.
styleNoStyle configuration for the chart with a JSON object, optional.
themeNoSet the theme for the chart, optional, default is 'default'.default
widthNoSet the width of chart, default is 600.
heightNoSet the height of chart, default is 400.
brandThemeNoName of a brand theme saved on the user's account (their colours and footer), only when the user asks for their theme. Or "colorblind" for colours that people with colour-vision deficiency can tell apart (anyone can use it).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating generation call. The description adds only the conceptual rendering model and says nothing about output format, whether an image URL or spec is returned, or any limits beyond the schema's depth cap. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The definition is two sentences and front-loads the chart type and its structure before the applicability hint. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('to uses a fish skeleton, like structure') slightly reduces polish but nothing is padding.

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 six parameters with nested objects but full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough conceptual grounding for an agent to recognize when this chart type fits. It omits any discussion of the returned artifact, which is the main remaining gap but is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all six parameters, including the nested data structure, theme, texture, dimensions, and brandTheme, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Generate a fishbone diagram chart') and explains the visual concept (problem as fish head, causes as bones). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like generate_mind_map or generate_organization_chart, which are the closest structural alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'suits problems that can be split into multiple related factors' gives implied usage context for when this chart type is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the choice between fishbone and the many other hierarchical/diagram siblings.

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

All ChartAnt toolsInspect
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