echart-mcp-view

Open Candlestick chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_candlestick

Read-only

Open a candlestick chart to visualize OHLC market data. Specify title, data rows, and field mappings for open, high, low, close values.

Instructions

Open a focused candlestick MCP App for OHLC market and range data. 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_candlestick"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Tabular rows.
`title`	No	Chart title.
`advanced`	No	Renderer and safe option patch.
`encoding`	No	OHLC field mapping.
`subtitle`	No	Chart subtitle.
`interaction`	No	Candlestick interactions.
`presentation`	No	Candlestick presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description minimally adds behavioral context beyond 'opens a focused MCP App'. It does not contradict annotations but offers little extra insight into side effects or limitations.

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?

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loads the tool's purpose. The second sentence is a bit telegraphic but not excessively verbose. Minor improvements could improve clarity.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects), the description covers only core aspects (title, data, encoding). It omits interaction, presentation, and advanced options, which are documented in the schema but not summarized.

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?

The description claims data can be 'rows, tree, or nodes/links', but the schema only supports arrays of objects or arrays of arrays (tabular format). This is misleading and adds confusion beyond the 100% schema-covered parameters.

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 name and description clearly indicate this tool opens a candlestick chart app for OHLC market data. The description specifies the data structure (title, subtitle, rows, encoding) and distinguishes it from sibling chart tools like open_bar or open_line.

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 states it is for 'OHLC market and range data' and mentions the overall structure, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to other chart types or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server