Browse all amCharts 5 code examples or filter them by category to find relevant charts, maps, stock, and more.
List all available amCharts 5 code examples, optionally filtered by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category, e.g. 'column-bar', 'line-area', 'pie-donut', 'maps', 'flow', 'hierarchy', 'stock', 'gantt', 'gauges', 'radar-polar', 'timeline', 'funnel-pyramid'. Omit to list all categories. |
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 burden: it says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination, or whether the output is static bundled content or fetched remotely. It is a low-risk read-only listing, but the behavioral surface is largely undisclosed.
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?
A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; everything stated 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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what a listed example looks like (name/id/category) so the agent knows how to chain into get_example. For a one-optional-parameter list tool it is serviceable, but the return-value handoff is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the category parameter already enumerates the valid values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that filtering exists, adding no format or matching semantics beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('List all available amCharts 5 code examples') plus the optional scope of filtering, which clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_example. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'optionally filtered by category' implies browsing vs. narrowing usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as search_all, search_docs, or get_example. The agent must infer that this is for enumeration rather than lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.