echart-mcp-view

Open Funnel chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_funnel

Read-only

Opens a funnel chart to display conversion stages and ordered value drop-off. Input data rows with name and value fields.

Instructions

Open a focused funnel chart MCP App for conversion stages and ordered value drop-off. 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_funnel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Tabular rows.
`title`	No	Chart title.
`advanced`	No	Renderer and safe option patch.
`encoding`	No	Item name/value mapping.
`subtitle`	No	Chart subtitle.
`interaction`	No	Item interactions.
`presentation`	No	Funnel presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with 'Open' action. The description adds behavioral info about data formats (rows, tree, nodes/links) beyond annotations, but does not detail return behavior or side effects. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and data structure. It does not explain all parameters but those are documented in schema. Could be slightly more complete with example usage, but sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning tree and nodes/links data formats not in schema, and clarifies encoding maps fields. This extra context raises the score slightly above baseline.

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 funnel chart for conversion stages and value drop-off, using specific verb 'open' and resource 'funnel chart MCP App'. It distinguishes from many sibling chart tools by naming the chart type and its purpose.

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 implies usage for funnel/conversion data with 'conversion stages and ordered value drop-off', but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling chart types. However, tool name and context signals make the intended use clear.

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

Deploy Server