Provides tools for reading and controlling TradingView Desktop charts, including changing symbols, timeframes, fetching OHLCV bars, and capturing screenshots.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@tradingview-mcp fetch the last 30 minute candles for EURUSD"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
tradingview-mcp/ v0.1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────A focused, type-safe MCP server that lets Claude Code (or any MCP-compatible client) drive a locally-running TradingView Desktop application — read chart state, change symbols and timeframes, fetch OHLCV bars, capture screenshots.
This project is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or associated with TradingView Inc. It is a personal-use bridge that interacts with your locally running TradingView Desktop application via the Chrome DevTools Protocol — the same standard debug interface built into Slack, VS Code, Discord, and every other Electron app.
Requires a valid TradingView subscription. This tool does not bypass, scrape, or circumvent any TradingView paywall or access control. Everything happens on your machine, against the TradingView Desktop instance you have already logged into and paid for.
All processing is local. No TradingView data is transmitted, stored, or redistributed by this tool. Your charts, your data, your machine.
TradingView's internal page API is undocumented. It can change between Desktop releases. Pin a working TradingView Desktop version if you want stability, and check theversion compatibility note before upgrading.
Wraps the TradingView Desktop chart in a small set of well-defined MCP tools. Tools are typed end-to-end with Zod schemas, validated at the boundary, and surface useful error messages when something goes wrong.
┌───────────────┐
│ Claude Code │
│ (or any MCP │
│ client) │
└───────┬───────┘
│ stdio (MCP)
▼
┌───────────────┐
│tradingview-mcp│
└───────┬───────┘
│ Chrome DevTools Protocol
▼
┌───────────────┐
│ TradingView │
│ Desktop │
│ (--remote- │
│ debugging- │
│ port=9222) │
└───────────────┘Related MCP server: TradingView MCP Jackson
Existing TradingView automation projects exist. This one is deliberately scoped down:
12 tools, not 78. Every tool is documented, typed, and tested.
Strict TypeScript. No any, no implicit returns, noUncheckedIndexedAccess on.
One responsibility per file. Connection, page, tools, and server are separate layers — version drift only requires fixing one spot.
Typed errors. ConnectionError, ToolExecutionError, ChartStateError etc. with actionable messages.
tradingview-mcp doctor. A diagnostic command that tells you exactly what's wrong with your setup.
Use this if you want a small, predictable surface you can read in an afternoon. Use the kitchen-sink alternatives if you want every TradingView feature wrapped.
Requires Node.js 20+.
npm install -g tradingview-mcp
# or, in a project:
npm install tradingview-mcpFor development:
git clone https://github.com/harshil1502/tradingview-mcp.git
cd tradingview-mcp
npm install
npm run buildOtherwise the debug port can't be enabled.
macOS:
open -a "TradingView" --args --remote-debugging-port=9222Windows:
& "C:\Users\<you>\AppData\Local\Programs\TradingView\TradingView.exe" --remote-debugging-port=9222Linux:
tradingview --remote-debugging-port=9222The--remote-debugging-port flag is a standard Chromium debug flag. It is opt-in and disabled by default. Nothing happens without you explicitly passing it.
tradingview-mcp doctorIf everything is wired up, you'll see something like:
tradingview-mcp · doctor
─────────────────────────────────────────────
[ok] CDP endpoint reachable on localhost:9222
[ok] TradingView page found (NASDAQ:AAPL · 1h)
[ok] tvWidget detected — chart state readable
─────────────────────────────────────────────
ready.Add this to your Claude Code MCP config (~/.claude/mcp.json or project .mcp.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"tradingview": {
"command": "tradingview-mcp",
"env": {
"TV_MCP_PORT": "9222"
}
}
}
}Restart Claude Code. The tools below will be available.
Tool | Description |
| Read current symbol, timeframe, visible studies, last price |
| Change the active symbol (e.g. |
| Change resolution ( |
| Fetch up to 5,000 most-recent OHLCV bars from the active chart |
More tools coming — see docs/roadmap.md.
You: What's the chart showing?
Claude: [calls chart_get_state]
Showing NASDAQ:AAPL on 1h timeframe with EMA20, EMA50.
Last price 187.42.
You: Switch to BTCUSDT 4h and pull the last 200 bars.
Claude: [calls chart_set_symbol, chart_set_timeframe, chart_get_ohlcv]
Done. Range: 187 days. Open at start: 62,440.
Close at end: 67,830. +8.6%.Env var | Default | Description |
|
| CDP host |
|
| CDP debug port |
| (auto-detect) | Explicit CDP target ID — only needed if you have multiple TradingView windows open |
npm install
npm run build # tsc to dist/
npm run dev # tsc --watch
npm test # vitest run
npm run test:coverage # with v8 coverage report
npm run typecheck # tsc --noEmitThe codebase has four layers:
src/
├── index.ts entry — reads env, starts stdio server
├── server.ts MCP server, tool registration, request handlers
├── errors.ts typed error classes
├── types.ts shared types + Zod schemas
├── connection/
│ ├── cdp.ts CDP client wrapper (chrome-remote-interface)
│ └── tradingview.ts TradingView-page interactions (all evaluated JS lives here)
└── tools/
├── index.ts tool registry
└── chart.ts chart_* toolsTo add a tool:
Create a new file under src/tools/ (or extend an existing one).
Export <name>Input and <name>Output Zod schemas plus the handler function.
Add the entry to TOOLS in src/tools/index.ts.
Add a test under tests/.
That's it — auto-registered, auto-validated, auto-introspectable.
TradingView Desktop | tradingview-mcp | Status |
2026.x.x | 0.1.x | Tested |
If TradingView updates and tools start failing, check connection/tradingview.ts first — that's the single file that knows about TradingView's internal API.
This software is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. By running it, you acknowledge:
You are using your own paid TradingView Desktop instance, against your own data.
You enabled the Chrome DevTools debug port yourself.
TradingView's internal API is undocumented and may break.
Nothing in this software guarantees correctness of trading decisions made by an AI agent on top of it. Use it on a paper account before letting it touch real capital.
MIT © 2026 Harshil Patel
This is a fresh implementation — built from scratch with the goal of being small, well-typed, and easy to read. If you've worked on similar tools in this space, thanks for paving the way.
Fetch recent OHLCV bars from the active chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of most-recent bars to return. Capped at 5000. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks details about behavior when no chart is active, what 'recent' means, or that count parameter is capped at 5000.
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?
Single sentence, 8 words, no fluff; but could be longer to include essential details without being verbose.
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?
Tool has one parameter and no output schema; description omits explanation of OHLCV, return format, timeframe context, and count's effect.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', resource 'OHLCV bars', and context 'from the active chart', distinguishing it from sibling tools like chart_get_state or quote_get.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., quote_get for quotes) or prerequisites like having an active chart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the current chart state: symbol, timeframe, visible studies, and last price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explicitly declares the tool as read-only ('Read'), which aligns with the operation. It discloses the output fields. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could mention if auth or rate limits apply.
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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value: action, resource, and output details. Highly efficient.
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?
Given no output schema, the description clearly lists all return values (symbol, timeframe, visible studies, last price). The tool is simple, and the description covers its purpose completely.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline score of 4 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?
Description clearly states the action (Read) and the resource (current chart state), and lists specific outputs (symbol, timeframe, visible studies, last price). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chart_get_ohlcv (which returns historical data) and chart_set_symbol (which modifies state).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes the function without providing context on scenarios or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate that for historical data one should use chart_get_ohlcv.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the active chart symbol (e.g. "NASDAQ:AAPL").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | TradingView symbol identifier, e.g. "NASDAQ:AAPL", "BINANCE:BTCUSDT", "NSE:RELIANCE". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'change', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it clears chart state, requires certain permissions, or is reversible). Minimal transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is efficiently front-loaded and directly communicates the tool's purpose and provides an example.
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?
For a simple one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it defines the action, resource, and provides a valid input example. However, it omits details about what constitutes 'active chart' or confirmation of success, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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% with a detailed parameter description. The tool description repeats the example ('NASDAQ:AAPL') which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not substantially enhance understanding of the parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Change the active chart symbol') and the resource, with an example. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like chart_set_timeframe (which changes timeframe) and get/read operations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if the symbol needs to be set before fetching data or if it has prerequisites). The description lacks explicit context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the active chart timeframe / resolution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeframe | Yes | Resolution: 1m, 3m, 5m, 15m, 30m, 1h, 2h, 4h, 1d, 1w, 1M. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., chart reload, impact on other chart state). The tool is a state mutator, yet no consequences are described.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though minimal.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks context about when timeframe changes take effect, whether they are reversible, or any related state changes. More context is needed for a mutation 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% for the single parameter 'timeframe', including both description and enum. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'resolution', so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'change' and the resource 'active chart timeframe / resolution', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chart_get_ohlcv or chart_set_symbol by focusing on timeframe modification.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. An agent receives no hints about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Trigger a Pine compile and return diagnostics (errors, warnings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects or state dependencies. It does not mention that it compiles the current source or what happens on failure.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, and front-loaded with action and result.
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?
Lacks mention of state or prerequisite (e.g., requires source to be set), and no output schema or format details. Incomplete for a compile action.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not explicitly state 'no parameters required' but is acceptable. Baseline 4 for zero params would expect more clarity about inputs.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Trigger a Pine compile') and the output ('return diagnostics (errors, warnings)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pine_save or pine_get_source.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., setting source via pine_set_source). Purpose is clear but lacks context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the current Pine Editor source code. Pine Editor must be open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description indicates read-only operation but does not detail behavior if editor is closed or format of returned source code.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded, no redundant information. Perfectly concise.
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?
For a simple read tool with no parameters, the description covers purpose and precondition. Could mention output format but not essential.
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?
No parameters, description adds no extra parameter info beyond schema. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters.
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?
Clearly states it reads the current Pine Editor source code, distinguishing it from pine_set_source (write) and pine_compile (compile). The verb 'Read' and resource are specific.
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?
Includes prerequisite 'Pine Editor must be open' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like pine_compile or saving source code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Save the current Pine script (commits + reloads the indicator on the chart).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool commits and reloads the indicator, which implies it modifies state and may have side effects on the chart. However, without annotations, it does not fully detail what happens to unsaved changes, whether it overwrites previous versions, or if it requires specific permissions. The disclosed behavior is helpful but incomplete.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb 'save' and includes essential behavioral details parenthetically. No extraneous words or repetition.
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?
Given that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's function. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, and what 'current Pine script' refers to (e.g., the script in the editor). It is mostly complete for a zero-parameter tool but could elaborate on state implications.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary detail.
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?
The description clearly states the tool saves the current Pine script, with the specific actions of committing and reloading the indicator. The verb 'save' and resource 'Pine script' are precise, and the detail 'commits + reloads' differentiates it from siblings like pine_compile (which only compiles) or pine_set_source (which sets source but may not commit).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pine_compile or pine_set_source. The description does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or scenarios where saving might be inappropriate (e.g., if the script has errors).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Replace the Pine Editor source code with new content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | New Pine Script source code. Replaces the current editor contents entirely. Include `//@version=5` at the top. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes that the replacement is 'entirely,' indicating full overwrite. However, it omits important details such as whether the operation triggers compilation, validates syntax, or interacts with unsaved content. The description is minimal but not misleading.
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?
Extremely concise at 8 words. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context (e.g., 'before compiling'). The single sentence is front-loaded but borderline under-specified for a set operation.
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?
For a simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It fails to mention typical usage patterns (e.g., paired with pine_get_source and pine_compile) or the need for valid Pine Script. Schema covers parameter details, but contextual workflow is missing.
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%, and the schema already provides a detailed description of the 'code' parameter (new source, replaces entirely, include version). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Replace the Pine Editor source code with new content.' It uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('Pine Editor source code'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pine_get_source (retrieve) and pine_compile (compile), and from unrelated tools like chart_get_ohlcv.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pine_save). No prerequisites, constraints, or workflow hints (e.g., compiling after setting). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a real-time quote snapshot for the active symbol (last price, day OHLC, volume).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation (real-time snapshot), but omits critical behavioral details: the dependency on a pre-set 'active symbol', potential error conditions if no symbol is active, and any side effects or rate limits. The active symbol mechanism is not explained, leaving significant transparency gaps.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and key outcomes. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return fields. However, it lacks essential context about the active symbol dependency, how to ensure the symbol is set, and error handling. While low complexity reduces the burden, this missing information could lead to incorrect 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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description adds no parameter-specific info but none is needed.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a real-time quote snapshot for the active symbol, specifying the exact data fields (last price, day OHLC, volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools like chart_get_ohlcv which fetch historical OHLC data, not real-time snapshots.
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?
The description implies usage when a real-time snapshot is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that the active symbol must be set beforehand via chart_set_symbol, nor does it contrast with chart_get_ohlcv for historical data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Capture the chart pane as a base64-encoded PNG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('capture') but does not mention potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., no chart loaded), or authentication needs. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the action and output format. However, additional context about when the tool might fail or prerequisites would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the output format (base64-encoded PNG), which is beyond the schema. However, there is no additional semantic enrichment for parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('capture'), the target ('chart pane'), and the output format ('base64-encoded PNG'). It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'screenshot_full' which captures the full screen.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when needing a chart pane screenshot, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., a chart must be open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Capture the full TradingView viewport as a base64-encoded PNG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action and output format, but lacks details on side effects, performance, or permission requirements. Adequate for a simple tool.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words, every part earns its place.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the output format. Could mention any constraints (e.g., chart must be loaded), but not required for this simplicity.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the schema coverage is 100%.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Capture'), the specific resource ('full TradingView viewport'), and the output format ('base64-encoded PNG'). It is distinct from siblings like screenshot_chart, which likely captures a chart area.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., screenshot_chart). However, the zero-parameter simplicity implies it's for full viewport capture, which is moderately clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0chart_get_ohlcvchart_get_statechart_set_symbolchart_set_timeframepine_compilepine_get_sourcepine_savepine_set_sourcequote_getscreenshot_chartscreenshot_fullEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The chart_* tools handle different aspects of chart interaction, pine_* tools manage Pine script editing and compilation, screenshot_* tools capture images, and quote_get fetches real-time quotes. No overlapping functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern: <domain>_<verb>_<noun> (e.g., chart_get_ohlcv, pine_set_source, screenshot_chart). All use lowercase with underscores, and the verb-noun structure is uniform across domains.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a TradingView MCP. It covers chart manipulation, Pine scripting, quotes, and screenshots without being bloated or too sparse.
The tool set covers core workflows like symbol/timeframe changes, data retrieval, Pine script management, and screenshots. A minor gap is the lack of tools to add or remove studies (only visible studies are read), but this does not severely hinder typical use cases.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server for OpenMM — exposes market data, account, trading, and strategy tools to AI agents
MCP server for Gainium — manage trading bots, deals, and balances via AI assistants
Remote MCP server for AI.TV creators — delegate account operations to your AI agent over MCP.
MCP server exposing the Backtest360 engine API as tools for AI agents.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/harshil1502/tradingview-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
