Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ChartQuery MCP Server

ChartQuery MCP Server

by chartquery
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Label View

label_view
Read-only

Render a previously saved label as an HTML page with inline SVG; embed it via iframe without an API key.

Instructions

Label View. View a previously saved label as an HTML page. Public, no API key required. Iframe-embeddable with inline SVG rendering.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "label_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld); the description adds genuinely new context: no API key needed, public access, iframe-embeddable, and inline SVG rendering. It omits any mention of error behavior when the id is invalid or whether credits are consumed, but the additions go well beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with near-zero waste. Only the leading 'Label View.' repeats the title and could be dropped.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the rendering format and access model but leaves the fields parameter and the stored-label precondition unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%, and the 'id' property has an empty description. The phrase 'previously saved label' implies the id identifies a stored label, which is useful, but the 'fields' parameter is never mentioned in the description and must be understood from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('View a previously saved label as an HTML page') and clarifies the saved-label scope, which distinguishes it from label_render/label_compile. It never explicitly names a sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 choose this over label_render, label_view's render siblings, or label_compile. The 'previously saved label' phrasing hints at a precondition but never says the label must already exist or how it was created.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools