Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Treemap Chart

generate_treemap_chart
Read-only

Generate a treemap chart to display hierarchical data and can intuitively show comparisons between items at the same level, such as, show disk space usage with treemap.

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_treemap_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for treemap chart which is a hierarchical structure, such as, [{ name: 'Design', value: 70, children: [{ name: 'Tech', value: 20 }] }], and the maximum depth is 3.
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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It adds the hierarchical/level-comparison intent but says nothing about what is produced (image, URL, or stored chart), whether output is persisted, or any limits on depth or size.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and a concrete example appended. It is slightly loose in grammar ('and can intuitively show') and the example duplicates the intent, but nothing is wasted.

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, nested objects, and no output schema, the description should clarify the return value and the depth constraint, neither of which it does. The schema compensates for parameter detail, but an agent still lacks confirmation of what calling this tool produces.

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 every parameter including the nested data structure and the max depth of 3 is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Generate a treemap chart') and characterizes the input shape as hierarchical data with same-level comparisons, which separates it from flat-chart siblings like bar or pie. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating an explicit selection rule.

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 example 'show disk space usage with treemap' and the 'hierarchical data' framing, so an agent can infer this is for nested part-to-whole data. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against alternatives such as pie, bar, or sankey.

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