Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView Unified MCP

TradingView Unified MCP

by daviddme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

batch_execute

Execute up to 100 tool calls sequentially in one browser queue slot. Reports per-step results, stops on failure by default, and never marks partial success as complete.

Instructions

Execute up to 100 tool calls sequentially in one browser queue slot. Reports per-step results, stops on failure by default, and never marks partial success as complete.

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": {
      "calls": "<calls>",
      "target_id": "<target_id>",
      "expected_layout_id": "<expected_layout_id>"
    },
    "name": "batch_execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsYes
target_idYesExact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes.
stop_on_errorNo
expected_layout_idYesExpected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context: sequential execution, per-step reporting, default stop-on-failure, and explicit handling of partial success. It does not explain rollback/atomicity or what happens to already-executed steps after a failure, but the core behavior is substantially disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds failure and reporting semantics in a compact single sentence. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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 four-parameter batch executor with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, reporting, failure defaults, and partial-success status. It could be stronger by stating whether prior successful steps persist after failure and what stop_on_error=false means, but the essential behavioral picture is present.

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 50%, with target_id and expected_layout_id already documented. The description adds the 100-call cap and the default stop-on-failure behavior, but it does not explain stop_on_error=false semantics, the arguments object, or how target_id and expected_layout_id affect execution beyond what the schema says.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: executing tool calls, up to 100, sequentially in one browser queue slot. It clearly describes batch execution rather than a single tool call, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as job_submit or direct single-tool invocation.

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 use case is implied by the batching scope and the one-queue-slot constraint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over individual tool calls, job_submit, or stream-based execution. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond what is embedded in the schema.

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