echart-mcp-view

Open Table chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_table

Read-only

Open a focused table view for row and column data inspection. Set title, subtitle, data source, and column properties.

Instructions

Open a focused table MCP App for row and column data inspection. 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_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Table rows and columns.
`title`	No	Chart title.
`subtitle`	No	Chart subtitle.
`presentation`	No	Table presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'data inspection' context, consistent with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits).

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

No output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the table is rendered. For a tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, more context about behavior and output is needed.

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 description burden is low. The description mentions title/subtitle and data formats (rows, tree, nodes/links), adding some context 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?

Clearly identifies the tool as opening a table MCP App for row/column inspection, distinguishing it from chart siblings. However, the phrase 'focused table MCP App' is slightly vague and could be more concrete.

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?

Implies usage for tabular data inspection but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned, though siblings are clearly different chart types.

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

Deploy Server