echart-mcp-view

Open Bar chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_bar

Read-only

Open a bar chart for category comparisons with support for grouped or stacked bars. Configure title, data, and encoding fields.

Instructions

Open a focused bar chart MCP App for category comparisons, grouped bars, and stacked bars. Use top-level title/subtitle; data holds rows, tree, or nodes/links; encoding maps fields.

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_open_bar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`axes`	No	Axis types.
`data`	No	Tabular rows.
`title`	No	Chart title.
`series`	No	Bar series list.
`advanced`	No	Renderer and safe option patch.
`encoding`	No	Cartesian field mapping.
`subtitle`	No	Chart subtitle.
`interaction`	No	Cartesian interactions.
`presentation`	No	Bar presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be read-only. The description adds that it 'opens' an app, reinforcing non-destructive behavior. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence efficiently covers purpose and key input aspects. No filler, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects), the description is minimal and does not explain many optional configuration fields (axes, series, interaction, presentation). Schema fills gaps but description lacks orientation.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions. The description adds high-level context (title/subtitle, data structure, encoding) but is slightly misleading by claiming data supports tree or nodes/links, which the schema does not reflect.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it opens a bar chart app for category comparisons, grouped bars, and stacked bars. The verb 'open' plus resource 'bar chart app' with specific use cases distinguishes it from sibling chart-type tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage guidance by indicating what to put in title/subtitle, data, and encoding. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other chart types, the name and context make the bar chart purpose obvious.

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

Deploy Server