Skip to main content
Glama
hqu

Datawrapper MCP

by hqu

delete_chart

Permanently remove a Datawrapper chart by its ID to manage your visualizations and maintain clean workspaces.

Instructions

⚠️ DATAWRAPPER MCP TOOL ⚠️ This is part of the Datawrapper MCP server integration.


Delete a Datawrapper chart permanently.

Args: chart_id: ID of the chart to delete

Returns: Confirmation message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chart_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The actual handler function that executes the deletion of a Datawrapper chart.
    async def delete_chart(arguments: DeleteChartArgs) -> list[TextContent]:
        """Delete a chart permanently."""
        chart_id = arguments["chart_id"]
    
        # Get chart and delete using Pydantic instance method
        chart = get_chart(chart_id)
        chart.delete()
    
        result = {
            "chart_id": chart_id,
            "message": "Chart deleted successfully!",
        }
    
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=json.dumps(result, indent=2))]
  • The TypedDict definition defining the input arguments (chart_id) for the delete_chart tool.
    class DeleteChartArgs(TypedDict):
        """Arguments for delete_chart handler."""
    
        chart_id: str
  • server.py:21-21 (registration)
    Registration of the delete_chart_handler in the main server file.
    delete_chart as delete_chart_handler,
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete... permanently'), which is critical context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or irreversible consequences beyond deletion. It adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The header and separator are slightly verbose but not excessive. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the header could be more concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (returns confirmation message), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, parameter, and return, but could improve with more behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter ('chart_id: ID of the chart to delete'), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic title. However, it does not explain format, validation, or sourcing of the ID, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 the specific action ('Delete a Datawrapper chart permanently') with the resource ('Datawrapper chart'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_chart', 'update_chart', or 'get_chart'. The purpose is unambiguous and directly addresses what the tool does.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the chart ID), exclusions (e.g., not for published charts), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_chart' or 'publish_chart'. Usage is implied 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/hqu/datawrapper-mcp'

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