ChartAnt

Generate Line Chart

generate_line_chart

Read-only

Generate a line chart to show trends over time, such as, the ratio of Apple computer sales to Apple's profits changed from 2000 to 2016.

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_line_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Data for line chart, it should be an array of objects, each object contains a `time` field and a `value` field, such as, [{ time: '2015', value: 23 }, { time: '2016', value: 32 }], when the data is grouped by time, the `group` field should be used to specify the group, such as, [{ time: '2015', value: 23, group: 'A' }, { time: '2015', value: 32, group: 'B' }].
`style`	No	Style configuration for the chart with a JSON object, optional.
`theme`	No	Set the theme for the chart, optional, default is 'default'.	default
`title`	No	Set the title of chart.
`width`	No	Set the width of chart, default is 600.
`height`	No	Set the height of chart, default is 400.
`animated`	No	true for an animated GIF (bars grow, lines draw, pies sweep open) instead of a still PNG; for email, slides and chat posts. The first frame is the finished chart.
`axisXTitle`	No	Set the x-axis title of chart.
`axisYTitle`	No	Set the y-axis title of chart.
`brandTheme`	No	Name 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.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description neither contradicts nor enriches. The description says nothing about output format (PNG vs animated GIF), rendering behavior, or how grouped series are drawn, leaving that disclosure entirely to the schema's animated and group descriptions.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the verb and resource, followed by an illustrative use case. The phrasing ("such as, the ratio of...") is slightly clumsy and the example is longer than needed, but there is no redundant content.

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?

For a chart generator with a rich 10-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces and roughly when to use it. It omits sibling differentiation among the many generate_*_chart tools and any statement about the returned artifact, which an agent selecting among 30+ chart tools would benefit from.

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% and the data parameter already includes detailed examples of the time/value/group shape, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds no meaning about any of the 10 parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Generate a line chart") and ties it to a concrete use case ("show trends over time"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as generate_area_chart or generate_scatter_chart, which also plot continuous x/y data, so an agent must infer the boundary from chart-type knowledge alone.

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 implied through the trend-over-time framing and the Apple sales/profit example, which hints at time series with one or more series. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives for categorical comparison or part-to-whole data, and no prerequisites stated.

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

All ChartAnt 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?