Skip to main content
Glama
Magic-Sauce

QuickChart MCP Server

by Magic-Sauce
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'download_chart' handles saving a chart 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 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming: 'download_chart' and 'generate_chart'. The naming is predictable and uniform across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a chart generation domain. A more complete surface might include tools for chart customization, listing chart types, or managing chart data, making this count borderline insufficient.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for chart generation. It lacks operations for updating or deleting charts, configuring chart parameters, or retrieving chart metadata, which are common needs in this domain and could lead to agent failures.

  • Average 2.9/5 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'generate' but doesn't specify output format (e.g., URL, image data), error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

    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, front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick understanding.

    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 with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the output, error cases, or parameter interactions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective tool use.

    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 description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For example, it doesn't explain 'datasets' structure or 'options' usage, leaving key parameters unclear.

    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'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'download_chart', which likely handles chart retrieval rather than 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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as data formatting or when to choose this over 'download_chart', leaving the agent without usage direction.

    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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool downloads to a local file, which implies file system write operations, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, supported image formats, error conditions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

    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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple download operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately. 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 performs file system writes with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what file formats are supported, whether the config parameter needs to match a previously generated chart, or any error conditions. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description mentions 'chart image' which aligns with the config parameter's purpose, and 'to a local file' which aligns with outputPath, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'generate_chart' - we can infer download might follow generation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

    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 existence of 'generate_chart' as a sibling tool suggests potential workflow relationships, but the description offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

    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

Quickchart-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Quickchart-MCP-Server 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/Magic-Sauce/Quickchart-MCP-Server'

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