Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Word Cloud Chart

generate_word_cloud_chart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draw a word cloud with words sized by frequency or weight (feedback themes, keywords). Data [{text, value}]. 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_word_cloud_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData for word cloud chart, it should be an array of objects, each object contains a `text` field and a `value` field, such as, [{ value: 4.272, text: '形成' }].
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 establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read operation, so that part is covered. The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete outputs: a hosted PNG link, a share page, alt text, and editable PowerPoint/Excel links, which tells the agent what artifacts it can hand back to a user.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core function and sizing semantics front-loaded before the data shape and the return artifacts. Every clause contributes new information.

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 does its job by enumerating the return artifacts (PNG link, share page, alt text, editable Office links) that an agent needs in order to report results. The styling-side parameters are left entirely to a well-covered schema, which is acceptable but leaves little redundancy for a 7-parameter nested tool.

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 every parameter (data, style, theme, title, width, height, brandTheme) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the data shape as [{text, value}] but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Draw") with a specific resource ("a word cloud") and immediately explains the encoding rule ("words sized by frequency or weight") plus concrete example inputs (feedback themes, keywords). That is enough to distinguish it from every generate_*_chart sibling, which produce entirely different chart types.

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 parenthetical "(feedback themes, keywords)" implies suitable use cases, so an agent can infer that this is for text-frequency data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (for example, a bar chart when ranking matters more than the visual).

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