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

echart-mcp-view

by SpenserCai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Open Gauge chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_gauge
Read-only

Open a focused gauge chart to visualize a single KPI, progress, or threshold state. Map data fields to gauge display with title, subtitle, and customizable encoding.

Instructions

Open a focused gauge MCP App for a single KPI, progress indicator, or threshold state. 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_gauge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoTabular rows.
titleNoChart title.
advancedNoRenderer and safe option patch.
encodingNoItem name/value mapping.
subtitleNoChart subtitle.
interactionNoBasic interactions.
presentationNoGauge presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it opens a 'focused' app, which is not further explained. The score is adequate given annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and nested objects, the description does not explain key gauge concepts like value range, min/max, or pointer behavior. The schema covers structure but the description lacks sufficient context for correct use.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description's summary ('Use top-level title/subtitle; data holds rows...') adds limited extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a gauge chart for 'a single KPI, progress indicator, or threshold state', clearly distinguishing it from sibling chart tools like bar, line, or pie.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for single KPIs or progress indicators, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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