Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
echart-mcp-view

echart-mcp-view

by SpenserCai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get echart-mcp-view example inputs

echart_mcp_view_app_examples
Read-only

Retrieve reusable example inputs for any ECharts chart type, or get examples for all supported types at once.

Instructions

App-only helper that returns reusable example inputs for one chart type or every supported chart type.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "echart_mcp_view_app_examples"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chartTypeNoChart type; omit for all examples.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., that it only returns static examples, no side effects, or rate limits). It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words that conveys the core purpose without fluff. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or usage of examples. Given low complexity and 0 required params, it meets minimum viability but could be more helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, with one parameter 'chartType' fully described by enum and description. The tool's description repeats the same idea ('omit for all examples') but adds no new semantic info beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns reusable example inputs for chart types, using specific verb 'returns' and resource 'example inputs'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'open' tools by being an 'app-only helper', though it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'build_option' sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'echart_mcp_view_app_build_option' or the various 'open' tools. The description simply states functionality without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools