Lists all open TradingView chart tabs so you can identify and switch between active desktop charts.
List all open TradingView chart tabs
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": "tab_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?
The 'List' verb implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does not clarify scope (e.g., all windows vs current window) or whether the response is a simple array or includes tab metadata. For a trivial zero-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, making it easy to scan. Nothing extraneous is included.
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?
The tool is a zero-parameter list operation, so minimal description is needed. However, without an output schema, the description does not specify the return shape or any edge cases (e.g., no open tabs). This is a minor gap given the 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?
There are no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. With an empty input schema, the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies here.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('open TradingView chart tabs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tab management tools like tab_new, tab_close, and tab_switch, and from layout_list, since it targets chart tabs specifically. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that tab_list is the read-only counterpart to tab_new/tab_close/tab_switch, nor does it reference layout_list or other list tools. The agent must infer the use case from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.