Verified React chart generation: select, validate, repair, render, and inspect charts through MCP.
Run design diagnostics plus accessibility and mobile audits, returning prioritized structured findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| viewportWidth | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| component | Yes | |
| evidenceGate | No | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes | |
| evidenceEnvelope | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about returning prioritized structured findings, but it does little beyond that, such as clarifying scope limits or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope and immediately clarifies the return value format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety behavior, but the required input parameters are completely unexplained. Given that there are two required parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without extra knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the required parameters component and props, or the optional viewportWidth. An agent is left with only parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correctly constructing an audit call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ("Run"), a clear resource (chart audits), and a concrete scope (design diagnostics plus accessibility and mobile audits). It also states that the tool returns prioritized structured findings, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like createChart and explainChart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—when an existing chart needs design, accessibility, or mobile auditing—but it never explicitly says when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like improveChart. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Select, validate, diagnose, render, and prove a static-data Semiotic chart. This is the default public workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| props | No | Optional props to merge over the selected chart recipe. | |
| theme | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| component | No | Optional chart preference; the fit-ranked result remains authoritative. | |
| fieldRoles | No | Per-field semantic or exact encoding-role hints used before chart ranking. | |
| identifiers | No | Fields that identify records and must not be used as visual encodings or measures. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| component | No | |
| evidenceGate | No | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes | |
| evidenceEnvelope | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the internal workflow steps (validation, diagnosis, proof) and constraining input to static data, which helps an agent anticipate what the tool will do before invoking it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action verbs and closes with a clear default-workflow label. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with eight parameters, nested objects, and four sibling tools, the description gives the default-context marker but no parameter guidance or sibling-selection conditions. Annotations and partial schema descriptions carry a lot of the burden, leaving moderate gaps that an agent must resolve through exploration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (four of eight parameters have descriptions), and the description itself names no parameters or how they map to chart selection. It adds only the high-level hint that the data should be static, leaving complex fields like fieldRoles and audience largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific multi-step workflow—select, validate, diagnose, render, and prove—over a defined resource: static-data Semiotic charts. This clearly separates it from the sibling audit/explain/schema/improve tools by presenting it as the default all-in-one chart workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"This is the default public workflow" explicitly signals default choice among siblings. However, it does not enumerate when a sibling such as improveChart or auditChart should be preferred, so alternative routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return reader grounding: chart description, communicative intent, and navigable data structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| props | Yes | ||
| component | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| grounding | Yes | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes | |
| evidenceFragment | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs to add only non-obvious behavioral context. It does disclose what the tool returns, adding some value, but it does not clarify edge cases or how inputs affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and lists concrete outputs. The term 'reader grounding' is somewhat jargony, but the sentence is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description leaves the required input parameters unexplained and does not specify how the output relates to the inputs. Given the schema's low coverage and the tool's moderate complexity, this is incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or expected shape of 'component' or 'props'. While the tool's purpose hints that 'component' refers to a chart, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource: reader grounding for a chart, specifying three output aspects: chart description, communicative intent, and navigable data structure. The title 'without pixels' further distinguishes it from visual chart operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use explainChart instead of siblings like auditChart, createChart, getChartSchema, or improveChart. The description implies a use case for explaining a chart's semantic content, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return canonical Semiotic prop-schema guidance for code editing and advanced configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| schema | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| component | No | |
| renderable | No | |
| accessibility | No | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes | |
| behaviorContracts | No | |
| availableComponents | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds context by specifying that the output is 'canonical' guidance for Semiotic props, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return...') and immediately adds purpose. It avoids redundancy and every phrase contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered, and annotations address safety. However, the description does not explain the optional 'component' parameter or the exact scope of 'chart schema,' leaving a notable gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists a single 'component' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to infer the meaning of 'component' from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that it returns 'canonical Semiotic prop-schema guidance,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings (audit, create, explain, improve) by focusing on schema retrieval for code editing and advanced configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for code editing and advanced configuration' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions under which other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Diagnose a chart configuration, assess data fit, and propose repairs or variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| props | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| fieldRoles | No | Per-field semantic or exact encoding-role hints used before chart ranking. | |
| identifiers | No | Fields that identify records and must not be used as visual encodings or measures. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| repair | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| variants | Yes | |
| component | Yes | |
| diagnostics | Yes | |
| surfaceVersion | Yes | |
| evidenceFragment | No | |
| accessibilityRecommendation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns by saying the tool 'proposes' repairs rather than applying them. It adds some context about assessing data fit and producing variants, but it does not disclose additional operational traits such as limits, prerequisites, or output behavior beyond what the output schema already covers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with front-loaded action verbs and no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and the phrasing is compact without being bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having annotations and an output schema, the definition remains too thin for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects and low schema coverage. An agent still lacks guidance on what component/props should contain, what intent expresses, and how this tool differs in practice from auditChart or explainChart.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning for data, props, component, intent, fieldRoles, or identifiers. Schema description coverage is only 33%, leaving most parameters effectively undocumented, and since coverage is low the description needed to compensate but did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs—diagnose, assess, propose—and names the resource as a chart configuration, so an agent can tell this is about improving an existing chart. The 'repairs or variants' phrasing distinguishes it from create/explain/audit siblings, but without explicitly naming them, it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for diagnosing and improving an existing chart rather than creating or explaining one, but it does not state when to prefer it over auditChart or explainChart. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
auditChart2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / evidenceEnvelopeAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / evidenceGateAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}createChart2 fields changedOutput schema / properties / evidenceEnvelopeAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / evidenceGateAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}explainChart1 field changedOutput schema / properties / evidenceFragmentAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}improveChart1 field changedOutput schema / properties / evidenceFragmentAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}createChart2 fields changedInput schema / properties / fieldRolesAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "identifier",
+ "measure",
+ "dimension",
+ "temporal",
+ "x",
+ "y",
+ "size",
+ "category",
+ "series",
+ "time",
+ "ignore"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "identifier",
+ "measure",
+ "dimension",
+ "temporal",
+ "x",
+ "y",
+ "size",
+ "category",
+ "series",
+ "time",
+ "ignore"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "description": "Per-field semantic or exact encoding-role hints used before chart ranking.",
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / identifiersAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Fields that identify records and must not be used as visual encodings or measures.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}improveChart2 fields changedInput schema / properties / fieldRolesAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "identifier",
+ "measure",
+ "dimension",
+ "temporal",
+ "x",
+ "y",
+ "size",
+ "category",
+ "series",
+ "time",
+ "ignore"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "identifier",
+ "measure",
+ "dimension",
+ "temporal",
+ "x",
+ "y",
+ "size",
+ "category",
+ "series",
+ "time",
+ "ignore"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "description": "Per-field semantic or exact encoding-role hints used before chart ranking.",
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / identifiersAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Fields that identify records and must not be used as visual encodings or measures.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}getChartSchema1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "accessibility": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "chartContainer": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "directProps": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "directProps",
+ "chartContainer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "availableComponents": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "renderable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "renderable"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "behaviorContracts": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "component": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "renderable": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "component-list",
+ "component-schema",
+ "unknown-component"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "surfaceVersion": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "surfaceVersion"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}improveChart5 fields changedOutput schema / properties / accessibilityRecommendationAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "chartContainer": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "location": {
+ "const": "direct-component-props",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "props": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "location",
+ "props",
+ "chartContainer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / diagnosticsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / repairAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / variantsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "status",
- "component",
- "surfaceVersion"
-]New value: +[
+ "status",
+ "component",
+ "diagnostics",
+ "repair",
+ "variants",
+ "surfaceVersion"
+]auditChartcreateChartexplainChartgetChartSchemaimproveChartClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Generate production-ready chart code (Recharts, Chart.js, ECharts, Plotly) from a prompt.
MERCATOR Verify: evidence-backed verification and decision support for autonomous agents.
Create, inspect, manage, and render charts and data visualizations as SVG/PNG or interactive embeds.
Live React design-system APIs, patterns, and code validation so AI agents build real UI, not slop.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of chart work: creation, auditing, explanation, schema reference, and improvement. There is no overlap in primary purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-first camelCase pattern (auditChart, createChart, explainChart, getChartSchema, improveChart). The slight deviation of 'getChartSchema' is still verb-first and aligns with the pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a charting focused server, covering the core workflows without redundancy or bloat. Each tool provides a necessary function.
The tool surface covers create, analyze, explain, and improve workflows, with schema access for advanced config. Missing explicit update/delete operations is acceptable as charts are typically immutable configurations, and improvements are handled via improveChart.