Retrieve the visible logical bar-index range, time range, and bars per screen to inspect chart zoom state before modifying or analyzing a TradingView chart.
Read the visible logical bar-index range, time range and bars per screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's read-only phrasing is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and it adds useful context by naming the visible range measurements returned. However, with annotations already covering the safety profile, it does not add much behavioral detail such as target requirements or failure behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently lists the three pieces of information the tool returns.
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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description does state what is returned, which is helpful. It remains incomplete because it does not clarify the relationship to the very similar chart_get_visible_range sibling or explain how target_id and expected_layout_id affect reads.
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 target_id and expected_layout_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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, 'Read', and names the returned chart view details: visible logical bar-index range, time range, and bars per screen. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling chart_get_visible_range, which sounds closely related.
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 states what is read but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of chart_get_visible_range, chart_zoom, or chart_get_state. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.