Lists saved chart layouts, helping you find and select an existing layout before opening or managing charts in TradingView MCP.
List saved chart layouts
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": "layout_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 does not mention return format, whether the current layout is included, ordering, or side-effect safety beyond the verb 'list' implying read-only behavior. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool, this level of brevity is appropriate.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows to call it to get saved chart layouts. However, it does not explain the return structure, whether the list contains IDs, names, or full layout objects, or whether any errors can occur. With no annotations or output schema, a bit more output context 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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description accurately indicates what the output domain is ('saved chart layouts'), which is sufficient since there is nothing to configure or pass in. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'List saved chart layouts.' This clearly identifies it as a read-only enumeration of chart layouts, which is distinct from layout_switch, layout_new, and other layout-related tools in the sibling list. It does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming siblings, but the verb and object are specific enough for an agent to select it.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like layout_switch or layout_new. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that listing is a precursor to switching or creating layouts. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.