Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Venn Chart

generate_venn_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a Venn diagram of how sets overlap (customers of product A, B, both). Data [{sets: ['A'] or ['A','B'], value, label?}], one row per set and per overlap. 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_venn_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for venn chart, such as, [{ label: 'A', value: 10, sets: ['A'] }, { label: 'B', value: 20, sets: ['B'] }, { label: 'C', value: 30, sets: ['C'] }, { label: 'AB', value: 5, sets: ['A', 'B'] }].
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes beyond them by naming the returned artifacts: hosted PNG link, share page, alt text, and editable PowerPoint/Excel links. That output information is genuinely valuable given no output schema exists. It stops short of noting persistence or regeneration behavior for the hosted assets.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and use case, then the data contract, then the return values. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 seven-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input shape, and return artifacts, which is what an agent most needs. Styling and sizing options are left entirely to the schema, but since coverage there is complete that omission is low-cost.

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 all seven parameters including the nested data items, style, theme, and brandTheme. The description's compact restatement of the data shape adds the explicit cardinality rule ("one row per set and per overlap"), which is a modest gain over the schema examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Draw a Venn diagram") and immediately grounds it in a concrete use case ("customers of product A, B, both"). It is clearly distinguishable from the bar/line/pie siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The overlap example implicitly signals the right situation to reach for this tool (showing intersections between sets), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to an alternative for related needs. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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