Lists all studies on a selected TradingView pane, returning exact entity IDs for precise indicator management.
List every study on the selected pane with exact entity IDs.
| 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 readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds only that entity IDs are exact; it does not describe return shape, pagination, or behavior when no pane is selected, so it adds modest value beyond the annotations.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key scope and return detail ('exact entity IDs') are stated immediately.
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-only list tool with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, this is nearly complete. The main minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not specify the returned list structure beyond mentioning entity IDs.
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 the parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every study'), scoped to the selected pane. It does not distinguish this from neighboring indicator or study-data tools such as indicator_get_inputs or data_get_study_values.
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?
It implies the tool reads studies from the selected pane but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer its role from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.