Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView Unified MCP

TradingView Unified MCP

by daviddme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

workflow_copy_chart_create_alert

Copy a saved chart into an independent layout, verify the copy, change symbol/timeframe, save, create a native alert, and independently verify exact stored message/webhook/condition/activation.

Instructions

Copy a saved chart into an independent layout, verify the copy, change symbol/timeframe, save, create a native alert, and independently verify exact stored message/webhook/condition/activation. Uses durable checkpoints and refuses uncertain duplicates. Does not test webhook delivery.

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": {
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>",
      "layout_name": "<layout_name>",
      "alert": "<alert>",
      "target_id": "<target_id>",
      "expected_layout_id": "<expected_layout_id>"
    },
    "name": "workflow_copy_chart_create_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alertYes
symbolNo
target_idYesExact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes.
timeframeNo
layout_nameYes
save_sourceNo
idempotency_keyYes
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false. The description adds durable checkpoints, duplicate refusal, and an explicit webhook-testing exclusion, but omits partial-failure/rollback behavior, permissions, and what verification returns for a multi-step mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description front-loads the full sequence in a compact paragraph with no filler. It is dense but appropriate for a complex workflow, though slightly more structure could improve scanability.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 5 required, a nested alert object, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description omits required parameter semantics and return/verification details. It conveys the high-level flow but not enough for correct invocation without schema inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25%, with only target_id and expected_layout_id described in the schema. The description mentions symbol/timeframe and alert verification generically but does not explain required idempotency_key, layout_name, save_source, or the nested alert fields enough to compensate.

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 names the exact composite operation: copy chart, verify copy, change symbol/timeframe, save, create alert, and verify alert. It does not explicitly name the individual sibling tools it replaces, but the multi-step sequence clearly distinguishes it from layout_copy or alert_create.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies use when a full copy-and-alert workflow is needed and notes 'Does not test webhook delivery,' but gives no explicit when-to-use versus layout_copy/chart_set_symbol/alert_create alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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