Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Pie Chart

generate_pie_chart
Read-only

Generate a pie chart to show the proportion of parts, such as, market share and budget allocation.

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_pie_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for pie chart, it should be an array of objects, each object contains a `category` field and a `value` field, such as, [{ category: '分类一', value: 27 }].
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.
animatedNotrue 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.
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).
innerRadiusNoSet the innerRadius of pie chart, the value between 0 and 1. Set the pie chart as a donut chart. Set the value to 0.6 or number in [0 ,1] to enable it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and a title, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It says nothing about what the tool produces (an image, a URL, an artifact), nothing about the still-PNG vs animated-GIF choice, and nothing about whether charts persist or have side effects — even though one of the parameters hints output can be an animated GIF.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action and the intended use immediately, with no wasted preamble. The double comma in "such as, market share" is a minor polish issue rather than a structural flaw.

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?

With nine parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the definition should at minimum say what the agent gets back and whether output is a static image or animation. The schema covers inputs thoroughly, but the description leaves the entire return contract and output-selection behavior undocumented for a fairly configurable tool.

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 schema itself explains the data array shape, style, theme, brandTheme, and innerRadius/donut behavior in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema 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 and resource ("Generate a pie chart") and adds the use case ("proportion of parts, such as, market share and budget allocation"), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling chart generators that suit other data shapes. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 part-to-whole framing implied by "proportion of parts" gives the agent a usable cue for when this chart type is appropriate. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like bar or treemap for comparison-style data, and no prerequisites.

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