chartlink-mcp

Refresh a chart from its data source right now

fetch_data_source

Trigger a manual fetch for a data source to update chart data immediately. Returns fetch status, rows, published state, or error.

Instructions

Runs one fetch on top of the schedule. Returns {ok, rows, published, error}.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_data_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the return shape '{ok, rows, published, error}' and clarifies that it is a one-off fetch rather than a schedule change. However, it does not explain side effects, failure semantics, error content, or access requirements. With only openWorldHint=false as an annotation, the description carries more responsibility and only partially meets it.

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 compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Both sentences earn their place: one states the action, the other the return contract.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides the return shape and scheduling context. However, it omits the meaning of the id parameter and the nature/format of the error field, leaving visible gaps for a caller.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains what the required id parameter refers to. The name and title imply it is likely a data source or chart id, but the description itself adds no meaning to the schema's bare property definition.

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?

The description and title clearly state the tool's action: 'Runs one fetch on top of the schedule' and 'Refresh a chart from its data source right now.' This differentiates it from related data-source tools like set_data_source or clear_data_source in practical terms, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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?

The phrase 'on top of the schedule' implies this is for on-demand refreshes outside the normal schedule, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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