Skip to main content
Glama
ganapativs

microcharts

by ganapativs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Find a chart by question

find_microchart

Match a plain-language data question to suitable chart types, ranked by relevance. Enter what the data needs to show and receive candidates with the reason each matched.

Instructions

Rank microcharts chart types against a plain-language question about data ("is it trending?", "error budget", "part to whole"). Returns candidates with the reason each matched. Start here when you know the question, not the chart.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 6).
questionYesWhat the data needs to show, in plain language.
dataShapeNoOptional filter, e.g. "number[]".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.4
  2. Removedv0.1.3
  3. Addedv0.1.2
  4. Removedv0.1.0
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

While no annotations are provided, the description discloses the tool returns 'candidates with the reason each matched', which implies a read-only search. However, it does not explicitly state no side effects, which would be ideal.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the three parameters are fully described, an output schema exists (covering return values), and the sibling tool is mentioned, the description provides a complete context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value with examples for 'question' (e.g., 'is it trending?') and clarifies 'dataShape' as an optional filter. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'ranks microcharts chart types against a plain-language question', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'render_microchart' by referring to 'chart types' rather than rendering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Start here when you know the question, not the chart', providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying that 'render_microchart' is the alternative for known charts.

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