Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Network Graph

generate_network_graph
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a network graph of entities (nodes) and their relationships (edges): people, systems, dependencies. Data {nodes: [{name}], edges: [{source, target, name?}]}. For a step-by-step process use generate_flow_diagram. 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_network_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for network graph chart, such as, { nodes: [{ name: 'node1' }, { name: 'node2' }], edges: [{ source: 'node1', target: 'node2', name: 'edge1' }] }
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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return artifacts: a hosted PNG link, a share page, alt text, and editable PowerPoint/Excel links, which tells the agent what it will get back and that output is persisted and shareable.

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?

Four compact sentences: purpose, data shape, alternative, and returns, with the most decision-relevant information front-loaded. The data-shape sentence partly duplicates the schema, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 a six-parameter generator with nested data and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input shape, an alternative, and return artifacts. The main gap is disambiguation from other graph-like siblings (mind map, org chart, sankey), which matters in a large chart-generator family.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the {nodes, edges} shape already documented in the schema but adds nothing about the remaining parameters (style, theme, width, height, brandTheme) or about semantic constraints such as edge endpoints needing to match node names.

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 network graph of entities (nodes) and their relationships (edges)") and enumerates the concrete subject matter (people, systems, dependencies). This lets an agent distinguish it from generate_flow_diagram and the other chart generators without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes one adjacent case away: "For a step-by-step process use generate_flow_diagram." That is a real when-not rule with a named alternative. It does not, however, help the agent choose between this and other relationship-shaped siblings such as generate_mind_map, generate_organization_chart, or generate_sankey_chart.

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