Skip to main content
Glama
sher1096

KLinePic MCP Server

by sher1096
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.18.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: preflight validation without quota consumption, actual chart rendering, and capability/status checking. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent `klinepic_verb_noun` pattern using snake_case, making them easy to distinguish and predict.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools cover the essential workflow (validate, render, check capabilities) without unnecessary bloat or missing critical actions.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of chart creation: preflight validation, rendering, and quota/status inquiry. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 28 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • This server has been verified by its author.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Without annotations, the description adds some behavioral context: quota consumption and disclaiming investment advice. But it lacks details on failure modes, timeouts, or output format, leaving gaps.

    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 succinct sentences: purpose, usage caveat, and disclaimer. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (single nested param, no output schema), the description covers core purpose and quota usage but omits details on request structure and expected output, leaving an agent to infer.

    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% with one parameter described. The description adds 'KLinePic Agent API request body. Put chart fields under chart,' which marginally clarifies but doesn't significantly extend schema information.

    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 states 'Render one PNG candlestick chart with real buy/sell markers,' which provides a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like preflight_review_chart and get_capabilities.

    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?

    The description says 'This consumes render quota; preflight first,' giving explicit usage context and a prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to siblings.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-destructive behavior (no render quota consumption) but omits details on what validation entails, failure behavior, or auth requirements. Minimal but adequate.

    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?

    Two sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states action and benefit, second gives usage instruction. No wasted words.

    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?

    The description covers purpose and usage but lacks output behavior (e.g., what validation results look like) and does not elaborate on the nested object parameter's structure beyond what schema provides. Adequate for a preflight tool but missing completeness for a parameter with additionalProperties.

    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% with a generic parameter description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the 'request' parameter; it only restates the validation action. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 identifies the tool as a preflight validation step for broker/exchange fills and K-line data, explicitly stating it does not consume render quota. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool klinepic_create_review_chart which presumably renders.

    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?

    The description explicitly instructs 'Call this before rendering', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not state when not to use, but the purpose and sibling context imply alternatives.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It honestly discloses that the tool queries current key, permissions, quota, and endpoints. This is a read-only check with no destructive potential, though response format is not described.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with 'Check', zero wasted words. Perfectly concise for a parameterless tool.

    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?

    Low complexity (0 params, no output schema). Description covers what capabilities are checked. Missing details on response format are acceptable for such a simple tool.

    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?

    No parameters exist; baseline 4 applies. Description doesn't add param info because it's not needed. Schema coverage is 100% implicitly.

    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?

    Description clearly states verb 'Check' and resource 'KLinePic API' with specific items: API key, permissions, quota, supported endpoints. Distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on chart creation and preflight checks.

    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?

    Context implies use before chart creation operations to verify access and quota, but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance. Sibling names suggest workflow context (preflight, create).

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

klinepic-agent-api-examples MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

klinepic-agent-api-examples MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/sher1096/klinepic-agent-api-examples'

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