Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
GongRzhe

Quickchart-MCP-Server

by GongRzhe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

quickchart-server MCP 服务器

图像

使用 QuickChart.io 生成图表的模型上下文协议服务器

这是一个基于 TypeScript 的 MCP 服务器，提供图表生成功能。您可以通过 MCP 工具创建各种类型的图表。

概述

该服务器集成了 QuickChart.io 基于 URL 的图表生成服务，可使用 Chart.js 配置创建图表图像。用户可以通过提供数据和样式参数来生成各种类型的图表，服务器会将这些参数转换为图表 URL 或可下载的图像。

Related MCP server: quickchart-mcp-server

特征

工具

  • generate_chart - 使用 QuickChart.io 生成图表 URL

    • 支持多种图表类型：条形图、折线图、饼图、圆环图、雷达图、极坐标图、散点图、气泡图、径向仪表图、速度计图

    • 可定制标签、数据集、颜色和其他选项

    • 返回生成的图表的 URL

  • download_chart - 将图表图像下载到本地文件

    • 以图表配置和输出路径作为参数

    • 将图表图像保存到指定位置图像

图像

支持的图表类型

  • 条形图：用于比较不同类别的值

  • 折线图：用于显示随时间变化的趋势

  • 饼图：用于显示比例数据

  • 甜甜圈图：类似于中间空心的饼图

  • 雷达图：用于显示多元数据

  • 极地面积图：用于显示具有固定角度段的比例数据

  • 散点图：用于显示数据点分布

  • 气泡图：用于三维数据可视化

  • 径向仪表：用于显示一定范围内的单个值

  • 速度表：用于速度表式数值显示

用法

图表配置

服务器使用 Chart.js 配置格式。这是一个基本示例：

{
  "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

服务器将您的配置转换为 QuickChart URL：

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

发展

安装依赖项：

npm install

构建服务器：

npm run build

安装

安装

npm install @gongrzhe/quickchart-mcp-server

通过 Smithery 安装

要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 QuickChart Server：

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

要与 Claude Desktop 一起使用，请添加服务器配置：

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

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

或者

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

文档参考

📜 许可证

该项目已获得 MIT 许可。

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