Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Liquid Chart

generate_liquid_chart
Read-only

Generate a liquid chart to visualize a single value as a percentage, such as, the current occupancy rate of a reservoir or the completion percentage of a project.

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": {
      "percent": "<percent>"
    },
    "name": "generate_liquid_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shapeNoThe shape of the liquid chart, can be 'circle', 'rect', 'pin', or 'triangle'. Default is 'circle'.circle
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.
percentYesThe percentage value to display in the liquid chart, should be a number between 0 and 1, where 1 represents 100%. For example, 0.75 represents 75%.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered, and the description adds that this is a single-value percentage visual. It says nothing about rendering behavior, whether the chart is persisted or returned inline, or what happens with out-of-range values, so the value added beyond annotations is modest.

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 purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its brevity on examples rather than the routing and constraints an agent would find more useful.

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?

For a read-only chart generator with a fully documented eight-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and enough of the when. The only real gap is sibling differentiation against gauge and pie charts, which matters given the large family of chart tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's percentage framing reinforces the meaning of the required 'percent' parameter and ties it to the reservoir/project examples. It does not add semantics for shape, theme, texture, or brandTheme, but the schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly.

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

Purpose5/5

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 liquid chart') and immediately scopes it to the single-value percentage use case, giving concrete examples (reservoir occupancy, project completion). This distinguishes it from sibling chart generators like generate_gauge_chart or generate_pie_chart, which visualize data differently.

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 description implies when to use it — when you want to show one value as a percentage — but never explicitly contrasts it with close alternatives such as generate_gauge_chart, which is the most likely source of confusion. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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