Skip to main content
Glama
GongRzhe

Quickchart-MCP-Server

by GongRzhe

quickchart-server MCP Server

image

A Model Context Protocol server for generating charts using QuickChart.io

This is a TypeScript-based MCP server that provides chart generation capabilities. It allows you to create various types of charts through MCP tools.

Overview

This server integrates with QuickChart.io's URL-based chart generation service to create chart images using Chart.js configurations. Users can generate various types of charts by providing data and styling parameters, which the server converts into chart URLs or downloadable images.

Related MCP server: quickchart-mcp-server

Features

Tools

  • generate_chart - Generate a chart URL using QuickChart.io

    • Supports multiple chart types: bar, line, pie, doughnut, radar, polarArea, scatter, bubble, radialGauge, speedometer

    • Customizable with labels, datasets, colors, and additional options

    • Returns a URL to the generated chart

  • download_chart - Download a chart image to a local file

    • Takes chart configuration and output path as parameters

    • Saves the chart image to the specified location image

image

Supported Chart Types

  • Bar charts: For comparing values across categories

  • Line charts: For showing trends over time

  • Pie charts: For displaying proportional data

  • Doughnut charts: Similar to pie charts with a hollow center

  • Radar charts: For showing multivariate data

  • Polar Area charts: For displaying proportional data with fixed-angle segments

  • Scatter plots: For showing data point distributions

  • Bubble charts: For three-dimensional data visualization

  • Radial Gauge: For displaying single values within a range

  • Speedometer: For speedometer-style value display

Usage

Chart Configuration

The server uses Chart.js configuration format. Here's a basic example:

{
  "type": "bar",
  "data": {
    "labels": ["January", "February", "March"],
    "datasets": [{
      "label": "Sales",
      "data": [65, 59, 80],
      "backgroundColor": "rgb(75, 192, 192)"
    }]
  },
  "options": {
    "title": {
      "display": true,
      "text": "Monthly Sales"
    }
  }
}

URL Generation

The server converts your configuration into a QuickChart URL:

https://quickchart.io/chart?c={...encoded configuration...}

Development

Install dependencies:

npm install

Build the server:

npm run build

Installation

Installing

npm install @gongrzhe/quickchart-mcp-server

Installing via Smithery

To install QuickChart Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @gongrzhe/quickchart-mcp-server --client claude

To use with Claude Desktop, add the server config:

On MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json On Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "quickchart-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/quickchart-server/build/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

or

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "quickchart-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@gongrzhe/quickchart-mcp-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Documentation References

📜 License

This project is licensed under the MIT License.

Available Tools

2 tools
download_chartC

Download a chart image to a local file

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configYesChart configuration object
outputPathNoPath where the chart image should be saved. If not provided, the chart will be saved to Desktop or home directory.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Download' implies file system write operations, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether existing files are overwritten, what image formats are supported, or error conditions. The description mentions default save locations but lacks other critical behavioral details for a file-writing 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool that writes files to the local system with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like supported image formats, error handling, file naming conventions, or what happens when the outputPath directory doesn't exist. The agent lacks critical information for reliable tool invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the outputPath default behavior which is already documented in the schema description. No additional context about the 'config' object structure or validation is provided.

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 ('Download') and resource ('a chart image to a local file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'generate_chart' - while 'download' implies saving to a file versus 'generate' which might create in memory, this distinction isn't explicitly stated in the description.

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 its sibling 'generate_chart'. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternative approaches, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

generate_chartC

Generate a chart using QuickChart

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesChart type (bar, line, pie, doughnut, radar, polarArea, scatter, bubble, radialGauge, speedometer)
labelsNoLabels for data points
datasetsYes
titleNo
optionsNo

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Generate a chart' but fails to explain key traits such as output format (e.g., image URL, binary data), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with complex inputs and no output schema.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Generate a chart using QuickChart', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output, error cases, and parameter usage, making it inadequate for an AI agent to effectively invoke this tool without guesswork.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is low at 40%, with only 'type' and 'labels' having descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining parameters like 'datasets', 'title', or 'options', leaving most parameters undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the sparse schema information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'Generate a chart using QuickChart', which provides a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('chart'), but it's vague about the specific action—it doesn't specify what type of chart generation (e.g., creating an image, URL, or embed) or distinguish it from the sibling tool 'download_chart'. This leaves ambiguity in the exact purpose beyond basic chart creation.

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 alternatives like 'download_chart' or other charting methods. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios for use, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate application.

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

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'download_chart' focuses on saving a chart image to a file, while 'generate_chart' focuses on creating the chart itself. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern ('download_chart' and 'generate_chart'), using snake_case and clear action verbs. This makes them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count2/5

With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a chart generation domain. It lacks essential operations like updating, deleting, or listing charts, which limits its utility and completeness.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for chart generation. It covers creation and downloading but misses critical operations such as updating chart data, deleting charts, or retrieving existing charts, leaving significant gaps in the workflow.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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/GongRzhe/Quickchart-MCP-Server'

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