El servidor MCP Make Charts With AI expone capacidades de recomendación y generación de gráficos impulsadas por IA como herramientas estándar del Model Context Protocol (MCP) para agentes de IA — Claude Desktop, Cursor, Antigravity, VS Code y más.
Paquete npm: makechartswithai
Visita makechartswithai.online/mcp y genera una clave de API anónima gratuita (5 llamadas a herramientas por clave).
Añade lo siguiente al archivo de configuración de tu cliente MCP (claude_desktop_config.json, mcp_config.json, etc.):
{
"mcpServers": {
"makechartswithai": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "makechartswithai"],
"env": {
"MAKECHARTSWITHAI_API_KEY": "mcwai_ak_your_key_here",
"MAKECHARTSWITHAI_BACKEND_URL": "https://makechartswithai.online"
}
}
}
}Eso es todo: tu agente de IA ya puede recomendar y generar gráficos.
Related MCP server: Data Analytics MCP Toolkit
recommend_chartsAnaliza conjuntos de datos sin procesar (JSON, CSV, tablas Markdown o indicaciones en lenguaje natural) y sugiere los tipos de gráfico óptimos con puntuaciones de confianza y justificación.
Entradas:
dataset_json (string, opcional): Matriz de datos JSON sin procesar o cadena de objeto.
dataset_content (string, opcional): Datos CSV, tabla Markdown o texto plano.
user_intent (string, opcional): Explicación en lenguaje natural de lo que quieres visualizar.
focus_columns (string[], opcional): Nombres de las columnas objetivo a priorizar.
generate_chartGenera una especificación de gráfico lista para producción y devuelve el resultado en el formato que elijas (share_link, svg, png). El motor de renderizado (vegalite, echarts, chartjs) se determina automáticamente según las capacidades del tipo de gráfico.
Entradas:
dataset_json (string, opcional): Cadena de datos JSON en bruto.
dataset_content (string, opcional): Conjunto de datos tabular (CSV, Markdown).
user_intent (string, opcional): Indicación de visualización en lenguaje natural.
preferred_chart_type (string enum, opcional): Uno de los 46 tipos de gráfico compatibles (Bar Chart, Grouped Bar Chart, Stacked Bar Chart, Line Chart, Scatter Plot, Pie Chart, Area Chart, Heatmap, Radar Chart, Sunburst Chart, Sankey Diagram, etc.).
output_format (enum, opcional: "share_link" | "svg" | "png", por defecto: "share_link"):
"share_link": Devuelve URL públicas de vista y edición en makechartswithai.online.
"svg": Renderiza y devuelve la cadena de marcado XML SVG vectorial.
"png": Renderiza y devuelve el payload de imagen PNG de alta resolución (image/png base64 + artefacto de archivo guardado).
Variable | Requerida | Descripción |
| ✅ | Tu clave de API de makechartswithai.online/mcp |
| No | URL del backend (por defecto, |
Area Chart, Bar Chart, Bar Table, Boxplot, Bubble Chart, Bullet Chart, Bump Chart, Calendar Heatmap, Candlestick Chart, Choropleth, Combo Chart, Connected Scatter Plot, Density Plot, Doughnut Chart, ECDF Plot, Funnel Chart, Gantt Chart, Gauge Chart, Grouped Bar Chart, Heatmap, Histogram, KPI Card, Line Chart, Lollipop Chart, Map, Network Graph, Parallel Coordinates, Pie Chart, Pyramid Chart, Radar Chart, Range Area Chart, Ranged Dot Plot, Regression, Rose Chart, Sankey Diagram, Scatter Plot, Slope Chart, Sparkline, Stacked Bar Chart, Streamgraph, Strip Plot, Sunburst Chart, Tree, Treemap, Violin Plot, Waterfall Chart.
🌐 App: makechartswithai.online
🔑 Claves de API: makechartswithai.online/mcp
Generates a production-ready chart specification and returns it in the requested format (share_link, svg, or png). Engine selection is automatically determined by chart type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_intent | No | Natural language visualization query or prompt. | |
| dataset_json | No | Raw JSON data string. | |
| focus_columns | No | Key data column names to prioritize. | |
| output_format | No | Desired output format for the chart: "share_link" (public web URLs), "svg" (vector SVG markup), or "png" (rasterized image). Defaults to "share_link". | share_link |
| dataset_content | No | CSV, Markdown, or raw text dataset. | |
| unnecessary_columns | No | Column names to prune from dataset payload. | |
| preferred_chart_type | No | Preferred chart type from supported visualization catalog. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already carry the mutation/open-world signals, and the description adds one extra behavioral fact: engine selection is decided automatically from chart type. However, it does not note side effects such as data being sent to an external engine or a share_link being publicly accessible, so disclosure is only partial.
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?
Two compact, front-loaded sentences contain the core action, the available output formats, and a useful implementation detail. There is no filler or repetition.
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 schema covers parameter semantics well, and the description states the main purpose and output modes. But given the missing output schema and the presence of a recommendation sibling, the description should also explain the expected workflow—e.g., when to call recommend_charts first and how the two dataset inputs relate—so the agent can plan 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?
All seven parameters have thorough descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not repeat them. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 action ('Generates'), a concrete deliverable ('production-ready chart specification'), and the three possible return formats. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool recommend_charts, which would recommend chart types rather than produce the chart.
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 on when to use generate_chart versus the sibling recommend_charts, or whether recommend_charts should be called first when preferred_chart_type is absent. The automatic-engine note is implementation detail, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Analyzes dataset structure or user prompt to recommend suitable chart types, confidence scores, and column classifications (requiredColumns, optionalColumns, unnecessaryColumns).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_intent | No | Natural language explanation of what you want to visualize. | |
| dataset_json | No | Raw JSON data array or object to analyze. | |
| focus_columns | No | Key data column names to prioritize. | |
| dataset_content | No | Tabular dataset in CSV, Markdown table, or raw text format. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns confidence scores and column classifications in addition to chart types, which goes beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose anything about output shape, limits, or side effects.
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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and then lists all relevant output categories in a compact, readable way, including the parenthesized column classification names.
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 four parameters are all optional and there is no output schema, so an agent relies on the description to understand what will be returned. The description lists chart types, confidence scores, and column classifications, but it does not specify the return JSON structure, confidence scale, or how requiredColumns relates to optionalColumns. This leaves some ambiguity for programmatic use.
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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description vaguely maps to user_intent and dataset_json/dataset_content with 'dataset structure or user prompt', but it adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, relationships, or precedence. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Analyzes') and clearly names the resource and outputs: dataset structure or user prompt, and the recommendations of chart types, confidence scores, and column classifications. This is distinct from the sibling generate_chart, which implies actually producing a chart rather than recommending one.
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 by saying it analyzes dataset structure or user prompt to make recommendations, but it never explicitly mentions the sibling generate_chart or says when not to use this tool. Context is present, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives.
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.
v1.0.1generate_chartrecommend_chartsThe two tools have clearly distinct purposes: recommend_charts handles analysis and suggestion of chart types, while generate_chart handles actual chart generation. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (recommend_charts, generate_chart). The minor plural/singular difference (charts vs chart) is negligible and does not break the pattern.
Two tools is minimal but appropriate for the server's focused scope of recommending and generating charts. While more tools could be added (e.g., editing, listing), the current set covers the core workflow without feeling incomplete.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle: analyze/recommend then generate. Tools for updating or managing generated charts are missing, but for a stateless generation service, the coverage is reasonable.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
MCP server connecting AI agents to 100+ apps (Gmail, Slack, Notion, GitHub) via one-click OAuth.
GibsonAI MCP server: manage your databases with natural language
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vickytr44/makechartswithai-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
