List native TradingView account study templates, distinguishing custom and built-in templates.
List native TradingView account study templates, distinguishing custom and built-in templates.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already establish the safety profile, and the description adds that results distinguish custom from built-in templates. However, it says nothing about why a pure list operation takes a Chrome tab target ID and a saved-layout guard, nor about result volume or ordering.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It could have used one more sentence for usage routing, but nothing present is filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description should say more about what a template record contains or how custom vs built-in is surfaced. The parameter story is left entirely to the schema, so the definition is serviceable but thin for a discovery tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in structured form, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not resolve the oddity that a read-only list accepts target_id ('Required for changes') and expected_layout_id, both optional here.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: lists native TradingView account study templates, with the extra distinguishing detail of custom vs built-in. The 'list' verb separates it adequately from study_template_get/save/apply/delete siblings, though it doesn't name them.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before study_template_get or study_template_apply, but the description never says so. No exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.