Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Flow Diagram

generate_flow_diagram
Read-only

Generate a flow diagram chart to show the steps and decision points of a process or system, such as, scenarios requiring linear process presentation.

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_flow_diagram"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for flow diagram chart, such as, { nodes: [{ name: 'node1' }, { name: 'node2' }], edges: [{ source: 'node1', target: 'node2', name: 'edge1' }] }.
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a non-mutating generation call, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. However, it adds nothing about what the tool produces (image URL, rendered markup, artifact reference) despite there being no output schema, which is a meaningful gap for a rendering tool.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing clause 'such as, scenarios requiring linear process presentation' is slightly awkward and grammatically loose, but it does not bloat the definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a generative tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what is returned or how the generated diagram is delivered. Combined with absent guidance on nested data shape versus sibling diagram types, the definition leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, including a concrete nodes/edges example and per-field descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Generate a flow diagram chart') and clarifies the subject matter as 'the steps and decision points of a process or system.' The trailing phrase 'linear process presentation' hints at differentiation from branch-oriented siblings like generate_fishbone_diagram or generate_mind_map, but it never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied through the phrase 'scenarios requiring linear process presentation.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many diagram-chart siblings, leaving selection largely to inference.

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