Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Mind Map

generate_mind_map
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a mind map: a central topic with branches of subtopics. Data {name, children: [{name, children?}]}. For reporting lines use generate_organization_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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "generate_mind_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for mind map chart which is a hierarchical structure, such as, { name: 'main topic', children: [{ name: 'topic 1', children: [{ name:'subtopic 1-1' }] }, 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
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the output contract: hosted PNG link, share page, alt text, and editable PowerPoint/Excel links. That is valuable disclosure not available elsewhere since there is no output schema. It adds nothing about depth limits, sizing behaviour, or theme defaults beyond annotations.

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 purpose, then data shape, then sibling routing, then return values. Efficient overall, though the inline 'Data {name, children: ...}' restatement duplicates the schema and could be dropped.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back, and it names the sibling to route away from. Remaining gaps (max nesting depth of 3, default dimensions, brand theme rules) are all handled by the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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, style, theme, width, height and brandTheme in detail. The description restates only the top-level data shape, which duplicates the schema rather than adding meaning, and says nothing about the styling or sizing parameters. Baseline 3 for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draw a mind map') plus the structural concept (central topic with branches of subtopics), and explicitly distinguishes itself from generate_organization_chart, which an agent could easily confuse with a hierarchical diagram tool.

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 a concrete when-not rule ('For reporting lines use generate_organization_chart'), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved among hierarchical-diagram siblings. It does not address other near-neighbours such as generate_fishbone_diagram or generate_flow_diagram, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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