SheetForge MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_chart_from_series

Destructive

Build charts from explicit series definitions to visualize non-contiguous data ranges in Excel workbooks, giving precise control over each plotted series.

Instructions

Create a chart from explicit series definitions for non-contiguous ranges.

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": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>",
      "sheet_name": "<sheet_name>",
      "chart_type": "<chart_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_chart_from_series"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`style`	No
`title`	No
`width`	No
`height`	No
`series`	No
`x_axis`	No
`y_axis`	No
`filepath`	Yes	Reuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing.
`placement`	No
`chart_type`	Yes
`sheet_name`	Yes
`target_cell`	No
`categories_range`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.14.0Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / filepath / description

Added value: +"Reuse supplied server path; NEVER prepend client cwd. Rooted: relative OK; unrooted stdio: absolute, ask if missing."

First observedv0.8.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true; the description adds no behavioral context at all — nothing about where the chart is inserted (placement/target_cell), whether it can overwrite an existing chart, or that it mutates the workbook file. For a 13-parameter mutation tool this leaves almost everything undisclosed.

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 well-formed sentence with the differentiating qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is more a symptom of under-specification than of disciplined editing.

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?

With 13 parameters, 8% schema description coverage, no output schema, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description would need to carry far more. It omits chart_type values, series object shape, placement semantics, and any note on mutation effects, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 8% (just filepath), and the description only vaguely gestures at two of the thirteen parameters via 'series definitions' and 'non-contiguous ranges' (i.e., series, categories_range). Required parameters like chart_type and sheet_name, plus placement, target_cell, style, and axis labels, get zero semantic guidance and chart_type has no enum.

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 ('Create a chart') and adds a scope qualifier ('from explicit series definitions for non-contiguous ranges') that implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling create_chart. It stops short of naming create_chart, so the contrast must be inferred rather than read.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'for non-contiguous ranges' implies the selection condition, but the description never says when to prefer create_chart instead, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing workbook/sheet or whether the chart is appended vs. placed. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server