Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Funnel Chart

generate_funnel_chart
Read-only

Generate a funnel chart to visualize the progressive reduction of data as it passes through stages, such as, the conversion rates of users from visiting a website to completing a purchase.

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_funnel_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for funnel chart, such as, [{ category: '浏览网站', value: 50000 }, { category: '放入购物车', value: 35000 }, { category: '生成订单', value: 25000 }, { category: '支付订单', value: 15000 }, { category: '完成交易', value: 8000 }].
styleNoStyle configuration for the chart with a JSON object, optional.
themeNoSet the theme for the chart, optional, default is 'default'.default
titleNoSet the title of chart.
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, and the description adds nothing beyond that. It never says what the call returns (an image, a URL, a stored chart object) or whether the chart is persisted, which matters given siblings like list_chart_versions and restore_chart_version.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and an illustrative example appended. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is a bit long and could split purpose from example.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 7 parameters, a nested style object, and no output schema, the definition covers only the 'what'. It omits any statement about the returned artifact or how the generated chart is delivered or stored, which is the main remaining unknown for an agent.

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 the schema already documents data, style, theme, dimensions, title, and brandTheme in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate a funnel chart') and defines the semantic shape it visualizes: progressive reduction of data across stages. That distinguishes it from generate_bar_chart or generate_pie_chart in conceptual terms, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'progressive reduction of data as it passes through stages' plus the conversion-rate example gives an agent a clear condition for selecting this tool over other chart types. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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