Retrieve the core amCharts 5 reference before building charts. Covers setup, colors, themes, legends, tooltips, events, data, adapters, disposal, and pitfalls.
Get the core amCharts 5 reference (SKILL.md) — covers setup, colors, themes, legends, tooltips, events, data, adapters, disposal, and common pitfalls. Read this first before any chart-specific reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses scope (setup, colors, themes, legends, tooltips, events, data, adapters, disposal, pitfalls), which is useful content context. However, it doesn't state the format of the return, whether it's static text or paginated, or size considerations. For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource name, followed by the content scope and usage directive. No waste; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, what it contains, and when to use it. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but the content scope list effectively communicates what the agent will get.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params). No param semantics required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (core amCharts 5 reference, SKILL.md), and names the sibling tools it precedes (chart-specific references). An agent can distinguish it from get_chart_reference or get_api_reference immediately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use it: 'Read this first before any chart-specific reference.' This is a clear sequencing directive that distinguishes it from the other reference tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.