tradingview-mcp/ v0.1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────Claude Code(또는 모든 MCP 호환 클라이언트)가 로컬에서 실행 중인 TradingView Desktop 애플리케이션을 제어할 수 있도록 지원하는 집중적이고 타입 안전한 MCP 서버입니다. 차트 상태 읽기, 심볼 및 타임프레임 변경, OHLCV 바 가져오기, 스크린샷 캡처가 가능합니다.
[!IMPORTANT] 본 프로젝트는 TradingView Inc.와 제휴, 보증 또는 관련이 없습니다. 이 도구는 Slack, VS Code, Discord 및 기타 모든 Electron 앱에 내장된 표준 디버그 인터페이스인 Chrome DevTools Protocol을 통해 로컬에서 실행 중인 TradingView Desktop 애플리케이션과 상호 작용하는 개인용 브리지입니다.
[!IMPORTANT] 유효한 TradingView 구독이 필요합니다. 이 도구는 TradingView의 페이월이나 액세스 제어를 우회, 스크래핑 또는 회피하지 않습니다. 모든 작업은 사용자의 컴퓨터에서, 이미 로그인하고 결제한 TradingView Desktop 인스턴스를 대상으로 수행됩니다.
[!NOTE] 모든 처리는 로컬에서 이루어집니다. 이 도구는 어떠한 TradingView 데이터도 전송, 저장 또는 재배포하지 않습니다. 사용자의 차트, 데이터, 컴퓨터에서만 작동합니다.
[!CAUTION] TradingView의 내부 페이지 API는 문서화되어 있지 않습니다. Desktop 릴리스마다 변경될 수 있습니다. 안정성을 원한다면 작동하는 TradingView Desktop 버전을 고정하고, 업그레이드하기 전에 버전 호환성 노트를 확인하십시오.
TradingView Desktop 차트를 잘 정의된 소규모 MCP 도구 세트로 래핑합니다. 도구는 Zod 스키마를 사용하여 엔드투엔드로 타입이 지정되며, 경계에서 검증되고 문제가 발생하면 유용한 오류 메시지를 표시합니다.
┌───────────────┐
│ 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
기존의 TradingView 자동화 프로젝트들이 존재하지만, 본 프로젝트는 의도적으로 범위를 좁혔습니다.
78개가 아닌 12개의 도구. 모든 도구는 문서화되고, 타입이 지정되며, 테스트되었습니다.
엄격한 TypeScript. any 사용 금지, 암시적 반환 금지, noUncheckedIndexedAccess 활성화.
파일당 하나의 책임. 연결, 페이지, 도구 및 서버가 별도의 계층으로 분리되어 있어 버전 변경 시 한 곳만 수정하면 됩니다.
타입 지정된 오류. ConnectionError, ToolExecutionError, ChartStateError 등 실행 가능한 메시지를 포함합니다.
tradingview-mcp doctor. 설정에 무엇이 잘못되었는지 정확히 알려주는 진단 명령입니다.
오후 시간 동안 읽을 수 있는 작고 예측 가능한 인터페이스를 원한다면 이 도구를 사용하십시오. 모든 TradingView 기능을 래핑하고 싶다면 다른 대안을 사용하십시오.
Node.js 20+ 버전이 필요합니다.
npm install -g tradingview-mcp
# or, in a project:
npm install tradingview-mcp개발용:
git clone https://github.com/harshil1502/tradingview-mcp.git
cd tradingview-mcp
npm install
npm run build그렇지 않으면 디버그 포트를 활성화할 수 없습니다.
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=9222[!NOTE]
--remote-debugging-port플래그는 표준 Chromium 디버그 플래그입니다. 이는 선택 사항이며 기본적으로 비활성화되어 있습니다. 명시적으로 전달하지 않으면 아무 일도 일어나지 않습니다.
tradingview-mcp doctor모든 것이 제대로 연결되었다면 다음과 같은 내용을 볼 수 있습니다:
tradingview-mcp · doctor
─────────────────────────────────────────────
[ok] CDP endpoint reachable on localhost:9222
[ok] TradingView page found (NASDAQ:AAPL · 1h)
[ok] tvWidget detected — chart state readable
─────────────────────────────────────────────
ready.Claude Code MCP 설정(~/.claude/mcp.json 또는 프로젝트 .mcp.json)에 다음을 추가하십시오:
{
"mcpServers": {
"tradingview": {
"command": "tradingview-mcp",
"env": {
"TV_MCP_PORT": "9222"
}
}
}
}Claude Code를 다시 시작하면 아래 도구를 사용할 수 있습니다.
도구 | 설명 |
| 현재 심볼, 타임프레임, 표시된 지표, 마지막 가격 읽기 |
| 활성 심볼 변경 (예: |
| 해상도 변경 ( |
| 활성 차트에서 가장 최근의 OHLCV 바를 최대 5,000개까지 가져오기 |
더 많은 도구가 추가될 예정입니다 — docs/roadmap.md를 참조하십시오.
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%.환경 변수 | 기본값 | 설명 |
|
| CDP 호스트 |
|
| CDP 디버그 포트 |
| (자동 감지) | 명시적 CDP 대상 ID — 여러 TradingView 창이 열려 있는 경우에만 필요 |
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 --noEmit코드베이스는 4개의 계층으로 구성됩니다:
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_* tools도구를 추가하려면:
src/tools/ 아래에 새 파일을 생성하거나 기존 파일을 확장합니다.
<name>Input 및 <name>Output Zod 스키마와 핸들러 함수를 내보냅니다.
src/tools/index.ts의 TOOLS에 항목을 추가합니다.
tests/ 아래에 테스트를 추가합니다.
이것으로 끝입니다. 자동 등록, 자동 검증, 자동 인트로스펙션이 지원됩니다.
TradingView Desktop | tradingview-mcp | 상태 |
2026.x.x | 0.1.x | 테스트 완료 |
TradingView가 업데이트되어 도구가 작동하지 않으면 connection/tradingview.ts를 먼저 확인하십시오. 이 파일은 TradingView의 내부 API를 알고 있는 유일한 파일입니다.
이 소프트웨어는 어떠한 종류의 보증 없이 "있는 그대로" 제공됩니다. 이 소프트웨어를 실행함으로써 귀하는 다음 사항을 인정합니다:
귀하는 자신의 유료 TradingView Desktop 인스턴스를 자신의 데이터를 대상으로 사용하고 있습니다.
귀하는 직접 Chrome DevTools 디버그 포트를 활성화했습니다.
TradingView의 내부 API는 문서화되어 있지 않으며 변경될 수 있습니다.
이 소프트웨어는 AI 에이전트가 내리는 거래 결정의 정확성을 보장하지 않습니다. 실제 자본을 투입하기 전에 모의 계좌에서 먼저 사용해 보십시오.
MIT © 2026 Harshil Patel
이 프로젝트는 작고, 타입이 잘 지정되어 있으며, 읽기 쉽게 만드는 것을 목표로 처음부터 새로 구현되었습니다. 이 분야에서 유사한 도구를 작업해 오신 분들께 길을 열어주셔서 감사드립니다.
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.
v0.1.0chart_get_ohlcvchart_get_statechart_set_symbolchart_set_timeframepine_compilepine_get_sourcepine_savepine_set_sourcequote_getscreenshot_chartscreenshot_fullScored across 11 tools
Each 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.
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.
