Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
GongRzhe

Quickchart-MCP-Server

by GongRzhe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

quickchart-server MCP サーバー

画像

QuickChart.io を使用してチャートを生成するためのモデルコンテキストプロトコルサーバー

これはTypeScriptベースのMCPサーバーで、チャート生成機能を提供します。MCPツールを通じて様々な種類のチャートを作成できます。

概要

このサーバーは、QuickChart.ioのURLベースのチャート生成サービスと統合されており、Chart.jsの設定を使用してチャート画像を作成します。ユーザーはデータとスタイルパラメータを提供することで、様々なタイプのチャートを生成できます。サーバーはこれらのデータをチャートのURLまたはダウンロード可能な画像に変換します。

Related MCP server: quickchart-mcp-server

特徴

ツール

  • generate_chart - QuickChart.io を使用してチャートの URL を生成します

    • 複数のチャート タイプをサポート: 棒グラフ、折れ線グラフ、円グラフ、ドーナツ グラフ、レーダー グラフ、極座標グラフ、散布図、バブル グラフ、ラジアル ゲージ グラフ、速度計

    • ラベル、データセット、色、追加オプションでカスタマイズ可能

    • 生成されたチャートのURLを返します

  • download_chart - チャート画像をローカルファイルにダウンロードする

    • チャートの設定と出力パスをパラメータとして受け取ります

    • チャート画像を指定された場所に保存します画像

画像

サポートされているグラフの種類

  • 棒グラフ: カテゴリ間で値を比較します

  • 折れ線グラフ: 時間の経過に伴う傾向を示す

  • 円グラフ: 比例データを表示する

  • ドーナツグラフ: 中心が空洞になっている円グラフに似ています

  • レーダーチャート: 多変量データを表示する

  • 極座標エリアチャート: 固定角度のセグメントで比例データを表示します。

  • 散布図: データポイントの分布を示す

  • バブルチャート: 3次元のデータ視覚化

  • ラジアルゲージ: 範囲内の単一の値を表示する

  • スピードメーター: スピードメーター形式の値表示

使用法

チャート設定

サーバーはChart.jsの設定形式を使用します。基本的な例を以下に示します。

{
  "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生成

サーバーは設定を QuickChart URL に変換します。

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

発達

依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

サーバーを構築します。

npm run build

インストール

インストール

npm install @gongrzhe/quickchart-mcp-server

Smithery経由でインストール

Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の QuickChart Server を自動的にインストールするには:

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

Claude Desktop で使用するには、サーバー設定を追加します。

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

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

または

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

ドキュメント参照

📜 ライセンス

このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています。

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 but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions saving to Desktop/home directory as a fallback, which is useful, but doesn't disclose important traits like file format, permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error conditions, or what happens if the config is invalid.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter (config), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the chart configuration should contain, what image formats are supported, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the relationship with the sibling 'generate_chart' tool.

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 any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what a 'chart configuration object' should contain, provide examples, or clarify the outputPath behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 the 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' - it's unclear if 'download_chart' generates and downloads or just downloads an existing chart.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'generate_chart' or explain the relationship between generating and downloading charts, leaving the agent to guess about appropriate usage contexts.

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions 'using QuickChart' which hints at an external service dependency, but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., URL, image data, error handling), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. For a tool with complex parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses minimal space to convey the basic purpose. Every word earns its place in this brief description.

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 with 5 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or how it differs from the sibling 'download_chart' tool. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent usage.

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 only 40% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining any of the 5 parameters. The schema provides some parameter descriptions (like 'labels for data points' and 'chart type'), but the description adds no additional semantic context about what parameters mean, how they interact, or what values are expected beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('generate') and resource ('chart using QuickChart'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'download_chart' tool, which appears to be a related but distinct operation. The description is specific about what the tool does but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 the sibling 'download_chart' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or alternative approaches. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus other chart generation methods or the sibling tool.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observeddownload_chart
    • First observedgenerate_chart
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

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
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches