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

echart-mcp-view

by SpenserCai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Open Scatter chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_scatter
Read-only

Create an interactive scatter chart for correlation analysis with bubble size, color encoding, and visual map support.

Instructions

Open a focused scatter chart MCP App for correlation, bubble size, and visual map analysis. 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_scatter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axesNoAxis types.
dataNoTabular rows.
titleNoChart title.
advancedNoRenderer and safe option patch.
encodingNoScatter field mapping.
subtitleNoChart subtitle.
interactionNoScatter interactions.
presentationNoScatter presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by describing the tool as 'focused' for specific analysis types, which complements the annotation. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary details or redundancy.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not describe the output (e.g., what the app looks like, what is returned). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more context about the result would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes key data structures (rows, tree, nodes/links) and encoding fields, but adds little additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies the verb 'open' and resource 'scatter chart MCP App', and states its purpose for correlation, bubble size, and visual map analysis. It distinguishes from sibling chart tools by focusing on scatter-specific features.

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 scatter analysis but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like bar, line, or pie charts. No direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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