Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChartAnt

by net.chartant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update a chart's data

update_living_chart
Idempotent

Replace the data (or the whole chart) of a chart made with create_living_chart. Its link stays the same, pages showing it update, and destinations attached to it with send_chart_on_update get a fresh copy. Sending the same data again changes nothing and sends nothing. The previous version stays in the history (list_chart_versions, restore_chart_version). For a report, send the whole report (title and blocks) as chart. Returns a confirmation with the link. 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>"
    },
    "name": "update_living_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe chart id from create_living_chart or list_my_charts.
dataNoThe new data rows, same format as before.
nameNoA new name for the chart.
chartNoA whole new chart definition instead of only data.
stampNoDraw the last-updated timestamp in the title.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the link is preserved, embedding pages refresh, send_chart_on_update destinations receive a fresh copy, repeat payloads are no-ops, and the prior version is retained in history. It also discloses the auth prerequisite (connector URL ending in /mcp/account), which no annotation conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and followed by consequences in rough priority order. It is dense with useful facts, though the final two sentences (return value, auth) read as appended fragments and could be tightened.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers side effects, idempotency, auth, and the return value ('a confirmation with the link'). Nested `chart` object behavior is only lightly characterized, but nothing an agent needs to call it safely is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for the `chart` parameter ('send the whole report (title and blocks) as chart') beyond the schema's terse 'whole new chart definition instead of only data,' but leaves `name` and `stamp` unexplained.

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: 'Replace the data (or the whole chart) of a chart made with create_living_chart.' The explicit reference to the creating sibling makes it unambiguous that this mutates an existing chart rather than generating a new one, distinguishing it from the generate_* family.

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?

Establishes the precondition (a chart already made with create_living_chart) and gives a concrete routing rule: 'For a report, send the whole report (title and blocks) as chart.' It also points to list_chart_versions / restore_chart_version for history, which implies where to go for rollback. What's missing is an explicit 'use create_living_chart instead if the chart doesn't exist yet' statement.

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