hex-mcp-server

hex-get-chart-image-from-run

Retrieve a PNG image of a chart cell from a completed Hex project run. Use project ID, run ID, and cell static ID to fetch the visual output.

Instructions

Get PNG of a chart cell from a completed project run.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "runId": "<runId>",
      "staticId": "<staticId>"
    },
    "name": "hex-get-chart-image-from-run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes
`width`	No
`height`	No
`staticId`	Yes	Cell static ID
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 does not state permission requirements, what happens if the run is not completed, whether the image is cached/fresh, or any size or rate constraints.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate, though the compactness leaves gaps elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits dimension semantics, failure modes for incomplete runs, and any return-format hint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Five parameters with only 20% schema description coverage (staticId alone is annotated). The description does not explain width/height defaults, maximums, or the roles of projectId and runId beyond vague implication, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Get PNG) and resource (chart cell image) scoped to a completed project run, which implicitly separates it from hex-get-chart-image-from-logic. Clear, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or spell out the distinction.

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 phrase 'from a completed project run' implies the run must have finished, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling hex-get-chart-image-from-logic as the alternative for non-run sources.

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

Deploy Server