echart-mcp-view

Open Graph chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_graph

Read-only

Visualize node-link relationship networks with interactive graphs. Accepts nodes, links, rows, or tree data with customizable encoding and presentation.

Instructions

Open a focused graph MCP App for node-link relationship networks. 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_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Nodes/links or relation rows.
`title`	No	Chart title.
`advanced`	No	Renderer and safe option patch.
`encoding`	No	Relation row mapping.
`subtitle`	No	Chart subtitle.
`interaction`	No	Item interactions.
`presentation`	No	Graph presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the non-destructive 'Open' action. Description adds context about data structures and encoding but does not disclose potential constraints, rendering behavior, or limits beyond what the schema provides.

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-load the purpose and parameter guidance with no unnecessary information. Every part earns its place.

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, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain data format variations (rows vs. nodes/links vs. tree) or how to construct the data object, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 properties. The description briefly mentions key parameters (title, subtitle, data, encoding) but adds no new semantic insight beyond the 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?

Description explicitly states 'Open a focused graph MCP App for node-link relationship networks,' clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from non-graph siblings (bar, pie, etc.) but could more explicitly differentiate from similar node-link tools like open_sankey or open_tree.

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?

Description implies usage for node-link networks but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., open_sankey for flow, open_tree for hierarchy). No explicit exclusions or context-dependent recommendations.

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

Deploy Server