ChartAnt

Update a chart's data

update_living_chart

Idempotent

Replace the data (or the whole chart) of a chart made with create_living_chart. Its link stays the same, pages showing it update, and destinations attached to it get a fresh copy. Unchanged data does nothing. For a report, send the whole report (title and blocks) as chart.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_living_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The chart id from create_living_chart or list_my_charts.
`data`	No	The new data rows, same format as before.
`name`	No
`chart`	No	A whole new chart definition instead of only data.
`stamp`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses meaningful downstream behavior: the link is preserved, pages showing the chart update, and attached destinations receive a fresh copy. It also clarifies that unchanged data is a no-op, which reinforces the idempotentHint with concrete semantics. It does not cover permissions, limits, or what is returned after the update.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the identity constraint before the conditional report rule. No filler, though some phrasing is terse to the point of ambiguity (e.g., 'Unchanged data does nothing').

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects and the report special case well but leaves the stamp parameter entirely unexplained and says nothing about whether a new version is created or what the response contains. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The description explains the two most important parameters: data ('same format as before') and chart ('a whole new chart definition'), including the report-as-chart case. But with 60% schema coverage, the name and stamp parameters get no treatment in either the description or the schema, leaving a real gap for the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the data (or the whole chart) of a chart made with create_living_chart.' It explicitly ties the tool to its sibling create_living_chart as the origin of the chart, which separates it from the generate_* family, and it covers both modes of operation (data-only vs. whole-chart replacement).

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?

It establishes the context for use (updating an existing chart so the link stays the same) and gives a specific conditional rule: 'For a report, send the whole report (title and blocks) as chart.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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?