Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Gantt chart

generate_gantt_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a Gantt chart (a project timeline): one bar per task from its start to its end date, optionally coloured by group or phase. Use for project plans, roadmaps and schedules. Returns a hosted PNG link, a share page, alt text and editable PowerPoint/Excel links.

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_gantt_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesOne row per task: {task, start, end, group?}; start and end are dates like '2026-03-01' (or numbers).
themeNodefault (light) or dark background.
titleNoTitle shown above the chart.
widthNoImage width in pixels (default 720).
heightNoImage height in pixels (default 480).
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real value by disclosing the return artifacts (hosted PNG link, share page, alt text, editable PowerPoint/Excel links), which the annotations and schema do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core rendering behavior, then usage, then outputs. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or name.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers return values, which is the main gap it needed to fill, and the input schema is thorough on its own. It leaves minor items unstated (date format expectations, row-count limits, resolution limits), but nothing that would prevent a correct call.

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%, so the schema already documents data, theme, title, width, height and brandTheme, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only light meaning for the grouping concept ('optionally coloured by group or phase'), without expanding on any other parameter beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Draw a Gantt chart (a project timeline)'), then defines the visual encoding: 'one bar per task from its start to its end date'. This clearly separates it from the many other generate_*_chart siblings without needing to name them.

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 states concrete use cases ('project plans, roadmaps and schedules'), which gives the agent a clear selection signal among chart types. It does not give any exclusions or point at alternatives, so the guidance is positive-only.

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