Skip to main content
Glama
FerroxLabs

TVControl

by FerroxLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

pine_open

Load a saved Pine Script into the editor buffer, replacing existing content. Confirm overwrite when unsaved work is present; for read-only access, retrieve source without modifying the buffer.

Instructions

Load a saved Pine Script into the editor buffer. THIS REPLACES THE BUFFER and does not guarantee the editor is bound to that script - check binding_verified before any pine_save. To READ a script with no buffer risk, use pine_get_script_source instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the saved script to open (case-insensitive; exact name or title wins, an ambiguous substring is refused with candidates)
confirm_overwriteNoRequired to replace a buffer that holds real work. Without it the call is refused rather than destroying unsaved code, same as pine_new and pine_set_source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.5.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_overwrite
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required to replace a buffer that holds real work. Without it the call is refused rather than destroying unsaved code, same as pine_new and pine_set_source.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the saved script to open (case-insensitive match)"New value: +"Name of the saved script to open (case-insensitive; exact name or title wins, an ambiguous substring is refused with candidates)"
  2. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the destructive behavior in caps ('THIS REPLACES THE BUFFER') and the non-obvious post-condition that the editor is not guaranteed to be bound to the script. The schema description for confirm_overwrite further reveals the safety refusal mechanism. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid data loss.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core purpose leads, the critical destructive warning is front-loaded in caps, and the alternative routing closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical ground: what it does, the destructive risk, the follow-up caveat, and the safer alternative. The only gap is that it never explicitly states what the tool returns (e.g., whether binding_verified is in the response), leaving that detail to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well, including the safety semantics of confirm_overwrite. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Load a saved Pine Script into the editor buffer.' It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling pine_get_script_source by highlighting the buffer-replacement risk, so an agent can distinguish this from the read-only alternative without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names the alternative (pine_get_script_source) and states the exact condition for choosing it ('To READ a script with no buffer risk'). It also provides workflow guidance: check `binding_verified` before any pine_save. The routing decision is fully specified.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools