Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView MCP

TradingView MCP

by madiver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

data_get_pine_labels

Read text labels drawn by Pine Script indicators and return text-price pairs. Filter by study name to target a specific indicator.

Instructions

Read text labels drawn by Pine Script indicators (label.new). Returns text and price pairs. Use study_filter to target a specific indicator.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "data_get_pine_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoReturn raw label data with IDs, colors, positions (default false — returns only text + price)
max_labelsNoMax labels per study (default 50). Set higher if you need all.
study_filterNoSubstring to match study name. Omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only operation and the return format, but does not discuss output limits, error cases, or whether a chart must contain the indicator. It's acceptable but minimal.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose, return shape, and filter hint are each in their own sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 output schema and three optional, fully documented params, the description covers what it returns and how to filter. It could add a note about alternatives or prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small hint for study_filter but doesn't enrich verbose or max_labels beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('text labels drawn by Pine Script indicators (label.new)'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like data_get_pine_lines and data_get_pine_boxes by focusing on labels. Also specifies return format ('text and price pairs').

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?

The description implies usage (read text labels) and gives a filter hint ('Use study_filter to target a specific indicator'), but doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools or state when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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