Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView Unified MCP

TradingView Unified MCP

by daviddme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

pine_list_scripts

Read-only

List the account’s saved Pine library through the browser’s TradingView request context; no credential extraction.

Instructions

List the account’s saved Pine library through the browser’s TradingView request context; no credential extraction.

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": "pine_list_scripts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
target_idNoExact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes.
name_filterNo
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that retrieval happens through the browser’s TradingView request context and does not extract credentials, but it omits pagination or return-shape behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. The semicolon clause adds meaningful security/mechanism context rather than repetition.

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?

For a five-parameter list tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It conveys purpose and safety but leaves parameter usage, filtering behavior, and result expectations largely unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the description explains none of the five parameters. It does not clarify limit, offset, target_id, name_filter, or expected_layout_id, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing the account’s saved Pine library. It is clearly distinct from source-editing or compilation siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase about browser request context explains mechanism and safety, but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected over related Pine tools.

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