Skip to main content
Glama

ChartAnt

List my charts and destinations

list_my_charts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the user's charts that stay updated (id, name, fixed link) and their destinations (id, type, name for Slack, Teams, Discord, email, webhook). Use it to find the ids that update_living_chart, send_chart_on_update and schedule_chart need. Needs a connection signed in to a free account (connector URL ending in /mcp/account).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_my_charts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: charts 'stay updated,' links are fixed, destinations include Slack, Teams, Discord, email, and webhook, and a specific account connection is required.

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?

The definition is two dense sentences with no wasted wording. Purpose and returned fields come first, followed by the dependent tools and the authentication requirement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by naming the chart and destination fields. It also covers the key prerequisite for calling the tool, so nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not spend space explaining parameters and instead documents the returned fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the user's updated charts and their destinations, and it names the exact fields returned (id, name, fixed link, destination id/type/name). This clearly distinguishes it from chart-generation and chart-version siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use this tool to find ids required by update_living_chart, send_chart_on_update, and schedule_chart. It also states the authentication prerequisite: a free-account connection whose URL ends in /mcp/account.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.