echart-mcp-view

Open Treemap chart app

echart_mcp_view_open_treemap

Read-only

Open a treemap to compare hierarchical data sizes. Supply rows or tree nodes, map fields, and set title, subtitle, theme, and interactions.

Instructions

Open a focused treemap MCP App for hierarchical size comparison. 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_treemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Tree nodes or parent-child rows.
`title`	No	Chart title.
`advanced`	No	Renderer and safe option patch.
`encoding`	No	Hierarchy row mapping.
`subtitle`	No	Chart subtitle.
`interaction`	No	Basic interactions.
`presentation`	No	Hierarchy presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description 'Open' aligns with read-only behavior but adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or response characteristics. It does not contradict 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 short (two sentences), immediately states the purpose, and front-loads key information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and complete schema descriptions, the description adequately summarizes the core purpose and data requirements. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema, so that is acceptable. The read-only nature is covered by annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of data structure (rows, tree, nodes/links) and encoding, but does not provide new meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool opens a 'focused treemap MCP App' for 'hierarchical size comparison', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like open_tree or open_bar by targeting treemap specifically.

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 hierarchical data visualization but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like open_tree or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or comparison with siblings 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