Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Schedule chart delivery

schedule_chart
Idempotent

Post a living chart to a destination at a fixed time, daily or weekly (e.g. every Monday at 08:00 UTC), with its latest data. Calling it again for the same chart and destination replaces the schedule. To send whenever the data changes use send_chart_on_update. Returns a confirmation. Needs a connection signed in to a free account (connector URL ending in /mcp/account).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "destination_id": "<destination_id>",
      "frequency": "<frequency>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe chart id from create_living_chart or list_my_charts.
hourNoHour of the day in UTC (default 8).
weekdayNoFor weekly: 0 = Sunday, 1 = Monday (default) … 6 = Saturday.
frequencyYesdaily or weekly.
on_updateNoAlso send whenever the data changes.
destination_idYesThe destination id from add_destination or list_my_charts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds concrete meaning to that (calling again for the same chart and destination replaces the schedule), states the return value ('Returns a confirmation'), and discloses an auth/connection prerequisite the annotations do not express. It stops short of covering failure modes or what happens when the destination is removed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: purpose and scope first, alternative routing second, replacement semantics third, return value and auth prerequisite last. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and a mixed read/write profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it schedules, the two frequency modes with an example, upsert semantics, the alternative tool, the return value, and the account prerequisite. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 id, destination_id, frequency, weekday, hour and on_update with defaults and ranges. The description's 'every Monday at 08:00 UTC' example reinforces the UTC semantics of hour/weekday but adds little the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Post a living chart to a destination') plus the scheduling model (fixed time, daily or weekly), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling send_chart_on_update. An agent can distinguish schedule-based delivery from update-triggered delivery without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('To send whenever the data changes use send_chart_on_update'), plus the prerequisite for using this tool (a connection signed in to a free account with a connector URL ending in /mcp/account). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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