Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Radar Chart

generate_radar_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a radar (spider) chart comparing items on four or more measures (products scored on price, quality, support…). Data [{name: measure, value, group?: item}]. 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_radar_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for radar chart, it should be an array of objects, each object contains a `name` field and a `value` field, such as, [{ name: 'Design', value: 70 }], when the data is grouped by `group`, the `group` field is required, such as, [{ name: 'Design', value: 70, group: 'Huawei' }].
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.
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool produces a hosted PNG link, a share page, alt text, and editable PowerPoint/Excel exports — information an agent needs to decide whether this tool satisfies an export or accessibility requirement.

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: purpose first, data shape second, return values last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler, and the most decision-relevant content (what the tool draws) is front-loaded.

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 takes on the burden of describing return values, and it covers the required parameter and the grouped-data mode. The only soft spot is that 'four or more measures' implies a minimum the schema does not enforce (minItems is 1), which could mislead an agent about validation.

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, title, width, height and brandTheme in detail. The description's 'Data [{name: measure, value, group?: item}]' shorthand only glosses the required parameter, mapping group to 'item' — a small clarification over the schema's grouping example but nothing beyond it. 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 a radar (spider) chart') and immediately scopes it to 'comparing items on four or more measures' with a concrete product/price/quality example. That is enough to separate it from the surrounding bar/pie/line chart siblings without opening any 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?

The 'four or more measures' comparison framing tells the agent what kind of data warrants a radar chart, which is real usage guidance rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. use a bar chart for independent measures) or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach a 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