Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Treemap Chart

generate_treemap_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a treemap: nested rectangles sized by value, for parts of a whole with a hierarchy (disk usage, spend by department and team). Data [{name, value, children?}]. 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_treemap_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for treemap chart which is a hierarchical structure, such as, [{ name: 'Design', value: 70, children: [{ name: 'Tech', value: 20 }] }], 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
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

A4/5.0
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 behavioral context by disclosing the return payload: a hosted PNG link, share page, alt text and editable PowerPoint/Excel links, which an agent needs for follow-up turns.

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 the core definition, then the selection criterion, then the data shape and outputs. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 seven parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well. It omits any note on the optional style/theme/size parameters or the brandTheme caveat, but the schema fully documents those, so the gap is minor.

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 data shape ("[{name, value, children?}]") without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, and says nothing about style, theme, width/height, or the brandTheme parameter's conditional usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Draw a treemap: nested rectangles sized by value" is a specific verb plus resource, and "for parts of a whole with a hierarchy" supplies the discriminating criterion against flat part-to-whole siblings like pie or funnel. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 phrase "for parts of a whole with a hierarchy" plus concrete examples ("disk usage, spend by department and team") gives a clear selection context. No explicit when-not or named-alternative routing is provided, so an agent must infer that non-hierarchical part-to-whole data belongs elsewhere.

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