mcp-highcharts

by austenstone

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.4.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Highcharts chart types or components (e.g., standard chart, dashboard, Gantt, grid, map, stock chart). There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions clearly differentiate each tool's use case, preventing misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'render_' as the prefix, followed by the specific chart or component type (e.g., render_chart, render_dashboard). This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability across the tool set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for rendering various Highcharts visualizations, covering key chart types and components. Each tool earns its place by addressing distinct visualization needs, making the count appropriate for the domain without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for rendering Highcharts visualizations, including standard charts, dashboards, Gantt charts, data grids, maps, and stock charts. This covers the core Highcharts library and major extensions, leaving no obvious gaps for the server's purpose of chart rendering.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, suggesting a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying that it renders 'inline' and references the Highcharts API, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like performance implications, rendering constraints, or what 'interactive' entails. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Render an interactive Highcharts chart inline') and provides essential context (input type and API link). Every word earns its place with no 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?
Given the complexity (30 parameters, no output schema) and rich schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration context. It assumes familiarity with Highcharts, which might be insufficient for users without prior knowledge.
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 high (97%), so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the input is a 'Highcharts Options object' and linking to the API, but doesn't explain parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Render') and resource ('an interactive Highcharts chart inline'), specifying the chart type and interactivity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like render_stock_chart or render_dashboard, which might also render charts but with different libraries or contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_stock_chart or render_dashboard. The description mentions the input is a Highcharts Options object but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about rendering a dashboard with synced layout and multiple components, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose performance characteristics, output format, or any limitations.
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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the complex nested input schema (4 parameters with deep structure) and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., HTML, image, URL) or provide guidance on the complex parameter structures, though annotations cover the safety aspect.
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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Render') and resource ('Highcharts Dashboard with multiple components'), specifying it creates a synced layout using @highcharts/dashboards. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'multiple components' and 'synced layout', though not explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like render_chart or render_grid. The description mentions 'multiple components' and 'synced layout' but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not criteria or alternative recommendations for simpler use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about using Highcharts.ganttChart() and provides a link to documentation, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, output format, or any limitations.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and underlying technology. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
For a complex tool with 31 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. While annotations cover safety and the schema documents parameters well, the description doesn't address what the tool returns (image, HTML, data URL) or provide high-level guidance for using such a complex visualization tool.
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?
With 97% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool renders a Highcharts Gantt chart for project timelines and task scheduling, specifying the exact chart type and underlying library. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Gantt chart' specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other render_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (render_chart, render_dashboard, render_grid, render_map, render_stock_chart). The description mentions the specific chart type but doesn't explain when a Gantt chart is appropriate compared to other visualization types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'Render[s] an interactive Highcharts Map,' which implies visual output generation but doesn't contradict the read-only hint. However, it lacks behavioral details like performance characteristics, output format (e.g., returns HTML, image, or URL), or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal context beyond that.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and input format. Every word contributes essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently references external resources for details.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (32 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich schema coverage, the description is minimal but not incomplete. It correctly identifies the tool as a map renderer and references external API docs. However, it doesn't explain the return value or provide usage examples, which could aid an agent in understanding what to expect after invocation. The annotations help with safety, but more context on output 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 description coverage is 97%, meaning the schema thoroughly documents the 32 parameters. The description only adds that the input is a 'Highcharts Maps Options object' with a link to external documentation. This provides high-level context but no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Render an interactive Highcharts Map for geographic data visualization.' It specifies the verb ('Render'), resource ('Highcharts Map'), and context ('geographic data visualization'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like render_chart or render_stock_chart, which likely render different chart types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the technical implementation ('Uses Highcharts.mapChart()') but doesn't indicate scenarios where a map is preferred over other chart types, nor does it reference sibling tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'renders' a chart, which aligns with this being a visualization tool rather than a data mutation tool. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like performance characteristics, output format (image vs. interactive), or any constraints beyond the Highcharts API reference.
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 extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and input format. Every word serves a clear purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the complex 34-parameter schema with rich descriptions and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about what the tool actually returns (chart image, HTML, interactive widget) since there's no output schema. For a visualization tool, knowing the output format is crucial for proper usage.
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?
With 97% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the 34 parameters extensively. The description adds minimal value by stating the input is a 'Highcharts Stock Options object' and providing a URL reference. This doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Render a Highcharts Stock chart for financial/time-series data.' It specifies the chart type (Highcharts Stock) and the data domain (financial/time-series). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'render_chart' or 'render_dashboard' beyond mentioning 'Stock' specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or specify scenarios where this stock chart tool is preferred over general chart rendering tools. The only contextual clue is 'financial/time-series data,' but this isn't framed as explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying it renders a data table as a standalone component, which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like performance considerations, error handling, or output format details, leaving room for improvement.
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 extremely concise with just two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key constraint ('no chart required'). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with essential information without any fluff 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?
Given the high complexity (11 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover return values, error cases, or detailed usage scenarios. With annotations only covering read-only status, more context would be helpful for effective tool invocation.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema thoroughly documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none, but also doesn't enhance understanding further.
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?
The description clearly states the tool renders a 'Highcharts Grid Lite data table for tabular data display' and specifies it's a 'standalone component — no chart required', which distinguishes it from chart-related siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other non-chart siblings like render_dashboard or render_gantt, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 by stating it's for 'tabular data display' and 'standalone component — no chart required', which suggests when to use it (for tables without charts) versus alternatives like render_chart. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to other non-chart siblings, making the guidance incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-highcharts MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/austenstone/mcp-highcharts/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/austenstone/mcp-highcharts)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-highcharts MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/austenstone/mcp-highcharts/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/austenstone/mcp-highcharts)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/austenstone/mcp-highcharts'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server