List registered tool schemas and verification labels, with optional prefix filtering, without requiring a TradingView connection.
Return the complete registered tool schemas and verification labels; no TradingView connection required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | Filter tool names |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that no TradingView connection is needed — but says nothing about cost, size of the returned catalog, or whether results are static across calls (annotations claim idempotentHint=false, which the description neither confirms nor explains).
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 no filler; the payload content comes first and the availability caveat is appended compactly.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value — it does so ('complete registered tool schemas and verification labels') and adds the connection-independence fact. It could say more about output shape (e.g., that it is a catalog keyed by tool name) or that 'verification labels' means annotation hints, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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?
With a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains 'prefix' ('Filter tool names'). The description does not mention filtering or prefix matching at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Return') and resource ('complete registered tool schemas and verification labels'), which is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast against siblings, but this is clearly a meta/introspection tool with no obvious overlap among the listed siblings.
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: the phrase 'no TradingView connection required' signals this is the right call when the terminal/browser is unavailable, and the resource description implies discovery/introspection use. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how it relates to sibling tools, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.