Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
GongRzhe

Quickchart-MCP-Server

by GongRzhe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

quickchart-server MCP 서버

영상

QuickChart.io를 사용하여 차트를 생성하기 위한 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 서버

차트 생성 기능을 제공하는 TypeScript 기반 MCP 서버입니다. MCP 도구를 통해 다양한 유형의 차트를 만들 수 있습니다.

개요

이 서버는 QuickChart.io의 URL 기반 차트 생성 서비스와 통합되어 Chart.js 구성을 사용하여 차트 이미지를 생성합니다. 사용자는 데이터와 스타일 매개변수를 제공하여 다양한 유형의 차트를 생성할 수 있으며, 서버는 이를 차트 URL 또는 다운로드 가능한 이미지로 변환합니다.

Related MCP server: quickchart-mcp-server

특징

도구

  • generate_chart - QuickChart.io를 사용하여 차트 URL을 생성합니다.

    • 막대형, 선형, 원형, 도넛형, 레이더형, 극지방형, 산점형, 거품형, 방사형 게이지, 속도계 등 다양한 차트 유형을 지원합니다.

    • 레이블, 데이터 세트, 색상 및 추가 옵션으로 사용자 정의 가능

    • 생성된 차트에 대한 URL을 반환합니다.

  • download_chart - 차트 이미지를 로컬 파일에 다운로드합니다.

    • 차트 구성 및 출력 경로를 매개변수로 사용합니다.

    • 차트 이미지를 지정된 위치에 저장합니다. 영상

영상

지원되는 차트 유형

  • 막대형 차트: 범주 간 값을 비교하는 데 사용

  • 선형 차트: 시간 경과에 따른 추세를 보여주는 차트

  • 원형 차트: 비례적 데이터를 표시하는 데 사용

  • 도넛형 차트: 중앙이 비어 있는 원형 차트와 유사

  • 레이더 차트: 다변량 데이터 표시용

  • 극좌표 영역 차트: 고정 각도 세그먼트로 비례 데이터를 표시하는 경우

  • 산점도: 데이터 포인트 분포를 표시하기 위해

  • 버블 차트: 3차원 데이터 시각화를 위해

  • 방사형 게이지: 범위 내의 단일 값을 표시하기 위해

  • 속도계: 속도계 스타일의 값 표시

용법

차트 구성

서버는 Chart.js 구성 형식을 사용합니다. 다음은 기본 예입니다.

지엑스피1

URL 생성

서버는 구성을 QuickChart URL로 변환합니다.

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

개발

종속성 설치:

npm install

서버를 빌드하세요:

npm run build

설치

설치 중

npm install @gongrzhe/quickchart-mcp-server

Smithery를 통해 설치

Smithery 를 통해 Claude Desktop용 QuickChart Server를 자동으로 설치하려면:

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

Claude Desktop과 함께 사용하려면 서버 구성을 추가하세요.

MacOS의 경우: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windows의 경우: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

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

또는

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

문서 참조

📜 라이센스

이 프로젝트는 MIT 라이선스에 따라 라이선스가 부여되었습니다.

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