Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Organization Chart

generate_organization_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw an organization chart of who reports to whom. Data {name, description?, children: [...]} starting from the top person; orient sets horizontal or vertical. For ideas rather than people use generate_mind_map. 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_organization_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for organization chart which is a hierarchical structure, such as, { name: 'CEO', description: 'Chief Executive Officer', children: [{ name: 'CTO', description: 'Chief Technology Officer', children: [{ name: 'Dev Manager', description: 'Development Manager' }] }] }, 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.
orientNoOrientation of the organization chart, either horizontal or vertical. Default is vertical, when the level of the chart is more than 3, it is recommended to use horizontal orientation.vertical
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 earns credit by disclosing the return surface: hosted PNG link, share page, alt text, and editable PowerPoint/Excel links. That output information is genuinely useful for an agent planning downstream steps and is not in any structured field since there is no output schema. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about generation latency, failure modes, or limits on input size.

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, all load-bearing: purpose first, then the input shape, then the return values. The sibling routing is placed inline where the mind map ambiguity would arise, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the four return artifacts, and the deeply nested recursive input is summarized adequately. Minor gaps remain: it does not warn about the depth-3 cap (left only in schema) or clarify what the share page/editable links require to be usable. Overall complete enough 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%, including the three-level depth limit, enum defaults, width/height defaults, and the brandTheme constraint, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description restates the data shape {name, description?, children} and what orient does, which is a helpful quick summary but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 an organization chart of who reports to whom") immediately, and explicitly separates itself from the closest sibling: "For ideas rather than people use generate_mind_map." An agent can distinguish it from the chart-generation family 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule to the semantically adjacent alternative (mind map) based on whether the subject is people or ideas, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face here. It does not cover when not to use it at all (e.g., when a plain hierarchy diagram like treemap is preferable), so it falls short of a full 5.

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