Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView MCP

TradingView MCP

by madiver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

draw_remove_one

Remove a specific drawing from a TradingView chart by its entity ID to clear unwanted chart annotations.

Instructions

Remove a specific drawing by entity ID

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "draw_remove_one"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYesEntity ID of the drawing to remove (from draw_list)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the destructive action and does not explain whether removal is permanent, what happens if the entity_id is invalid, or what the tool returns.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates action, resource, and selection key.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the schema covers the single parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations to fill in behavioral gaps such as error handling, idempotence, or confirmation of removal. The description is adequate for invoking the tool but not fully complete.

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 entity_id parameter is already fully documented. The description adds only 'by entity ID,' which confirms the selection mechanism but provides no additional meaning 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('drawing'), and a precise selection mechanism ('by entity ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from draw_clear, which removes all drawings, and from read-only siblings like draw_list and draw_get_properties.

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 this tool is for removing a single drawing by ID, and the schema's reference to draw_list hints at the required workflow. However, it never explicitly names draw_clear as the alternative for removing all drawings or states when not to use this tool.

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