Visuals MCP Server

Display Tree

display_tree

Visualize hierarchical data structures such as file systems or org charts with an interactive tree view that supports node expansion, metadata display, and export.

Instructions

Display an interactive tree view for hierarchical data structures. Use this tool to visualize file systems, organizational charts, nested categories, JSON/XML structures, or any hierarchical relationships. Supports node expansion/collapse, metadata display, and export functionality.

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": {
      "nodes": "<nodes>"
    },
    "name": "display_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nodes`	Yes	Array of root tree nodes
`title`	No	Optional title for the tree view
`expandAll`	No	Expand all nodes initially
`showMetadata`	No	Show metadata in tree nodes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions node expansion/collapse, metadata display, and export functionality. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only or any side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Lacks description of return value or output format. No mention of error handling or performance considerations. Given no output schema, this is a gap.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'metadata display' which aligns with showMetadata, but no extra context.

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?

Clearly states the tool displays an interactive tree view for hierarchical data. Lists specific use cases like file systems and org charts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like display_chart or display_table.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly mentions when to use (hierarchical structures) but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools. The sibling tools context implies alternatives, but not explicitly stated.

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

Deploy Server