Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Liquid Chart

generate_liquid_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a liquid-fill gauge showing one percentage as a filled shape (goal progress, capacity used). percent is 0 to 1, e.g. 0.72. For a dial against a maximum use generate_gauge_chart. 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": {
      "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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the return artifacts (hosted PNG link, share page, alt text, editable PowerPoint/Excel links). It does not mention retention, link expiry, or whether generation is billable, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is drawn and the percent scale, then the disambiguation, then the outputs. No sentence is padding and nothing important is buried.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested style object and no output schema, the description covers the value contract and the return artifacts, which is what an agent most needs. It could do slightly more on how title/theme/brandTheme interact or when brandTheme is appropriate, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter including the nested style object carries its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the percent domain (0 to 1, with a 0.72 example) that the schema already documents with a 0.75 example, adding no new meaning for shape, theme, or brandTheme.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draw a liquid-fill gauge') plus the exact data contract ('one percentage as a filled shape'), with concrete use cases (goal progress, capacity used). It also names the sibling tool it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from generate_gauge_chart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use this for a single fill percentage, use generate_gauge_chart for a dial against a maximum. That is a genuine when/when-not pair, though it only addresses the nearest neighbor and says nothing about other single-value relatives like bullet or funnel charts.

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