Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView Unified MCP

TradingView Unified MCP

by daviddme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

layout_delete

Destructive

Delete one saved TradingView layout by exact ID, verify it no longer exists, and refuse deletion when that layout is bound to the current tool.

Instructions

Delete one saved layout by exact ID and verify it disappeared. Refuses the layout currently bound to this tool.

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": {
      "layout_id": "<layout_id>",
      "target_id": "<target_id>",
      "expected_layout_id": "<expected_layout_id>"
    },
    "name": "layout_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layout_idYes
target_idYesExact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes.
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the call verifies the layout actually disappeared, and it hard-blocks deletion of the layout bound to this tool. It does not say what the verification failure looks like or whether the bound-layout refusal happens pre-flight.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the destructive action and its ID requirement front-loaded and the refusal guard second. Every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the action, the identifying requirement, post-delete verification, and one hard guard, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. What is missing is how layout IDs are discovered and what an expected_layout_id mismatch returns.

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 67% and layout_id itself has no description, only a regex pattern. The phrase 'by exact ID' adds a hint about matching semantics, but the description does not disambiguate layout_id from expected_layout_id, which is the key semantic subtlety (target vs. write-guard) of this call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Delete one saved layout by exact ID', which clearly separates it from layout_create, layout_copy, layout_rename and layout_save. It never points at layout_list as the source of the exact ID, so the agent must infer where the identifier comes from.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'by exact ID' establishes the precondition for invocation, and 'Refuses the layout currently bound to this tool' supplies an explicit when-not condition. There is no routing to a different tool for the cases it refuses (e.g., unbinding first or deleting another layout), which leaves a gap short of the 5 bar.

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