Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView MCP

TradingView MCP

by madiver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

tab_switch

Switch the active TradingView chart tab by its 0-based index to target the desired chart; use tab_list to find valid indices.

Instructions

Switch to a chart tab by index

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "tab_switch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYesTab index (0-based, from tab_list)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core action ('switch to a chart tab') but does not mention side effects, invalid-index behavior, or whether the switch modifies UI state beyond selection. For a simple navigation action, this is minimally acceptable 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one short sentence with no filler. It names the action, target, and index basis efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description and schema together are functionally adequate. However, there is no mention of error conditions, prerequisites, or return behavior, and no annotations exist to fill those gaps, leaving the context only minimally 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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter, including its 0-based indexing and relationship to tab_list. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Switch'), a resource ('chart tab'), and the selection method ('by index'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like tab_list, tab_new, or layout_switch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as layout_switch or ui_click. The parameter schema hints that the index comes from tab_list, but the description itself does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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