Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView Unified MCP

TradingView Unified MCP

by daviddme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

chart_symbol_info

Read-only

Read the selected TradingView chart's symbol metadata to identify ticker, exchange, and contract details before making chart-specific changes.

Instructions

Read symbol metadata for the selected chart.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "chart_symbol_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_idNoExact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes.
expected_layout_idNoExpected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "selected chart" scoping, and it does not explain the surprising idempotentHint=false on a read tool — presumably because it depends on which chart/tab is active — nor does it say what happens if no chart is selected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, but it is terse to the point of under-specification — the brevity costs information rather than saving it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what "symbol metadata" contains and what happens when no chart is active. Instead the agent is left to call blind and discover the return shape from the response.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about target_id or expected_layout_id, and notably does not clarify that expected_layout_id (a write-guard) is even meaningful for a read-only call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a verb (Read) and resource (symbol metadata) scoped to the selected chart, but "symbol metadata" is undefined — tick size? exchange? session? — and the description does not distinguish this from chart_get_state, chart_get_session, or chart_symbol_search, all of which plausibly touch the same symbol.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this instead of a sibling. The most obvious near-neighbor, chart_symbol_search, and chart_get_state are never mentioned, so the agent must guess which one returns symbol metadata.

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