Skip to main content
Glama
Asar007

visualize-chat-mcp

by Asar007
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one saves visualization JSON to a local file, the other pushes it to an API. There is no overlap in their primary functions, so an agent can easily choose the correct one based on the desired destination.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names use snake_case and start with imperative verbs (export, push). The pattern differs slightly—'export_json' is verb + object, while 'push_to_navigate' includes a preposition—but they remain readable and follow a similar style.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin for a general visualization server. However, for the narrow scope of exporting and pushing visualizations, the count is borderline acceptable rather than clearly insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the two primary output paths (local save and remote API push), which covers the core workflow. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing or deletion of saved visualizations, but these are not dead ends for the main use case.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Requires env vars' is a small start, but there is no disclosure of side effects, authentication requirements, or failure behavior—critical gaps for an imperative 'push' operation.

    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?

    A single, focused sentence delivers the core purpose without waste. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content, though conciseness itself is excellent.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    The tool has one parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the environment variables, expected response, error handling, or how it differs operationally from export_json, leaving the agent under-informed.

    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% since the schema describes the visualization parameter as 'The mindmap visualization JSON object'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so 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 clearly states the action ('Push') and the target resource ('Navigate Chat API'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool export_json by indicating a different destination. However, it lacks specifics on what 'visualization' means in this context.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus export_json. It only mentions a prerequisite (env vars) but doesn't explain conditions for selection or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits of this file-writing operation. It only states the action and destination, but omits critical side effects such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether the directory is auto-created, any permission requirements, or what the tool returns after saving. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

    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 description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb, object, and destination. Every word contributes to conveying the essential purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Despite the tool's low complexity, the absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description. It fails to explain the behavior of the optional filename (e.g., default naming, overwrite policy), whether the target directory is created automatically, or the return value/confirmation of the save operation. This incomplete context is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

    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?

    The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'filename' as optional custom filename and 'visualization' as the mindmap JSON object. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies since it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

    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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('visualization JSON') and states the exact destination path (~/.visualize-chat/visualizations/). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool push_to_navigate by emphasizing local file storage, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions the sibling tool nor explains scenarios where local saving is appropriate or inappropriate. The usage context is only implied by the action itself, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

visualize-chat-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

visualize-chat-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Asar007/visualize-chat-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server