Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView MCP

TradingView MCP

by madiver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ui_click

Clicks a TradingView chart UI element by aria-label, data-name, text content, or class substring to automate interface actions.

Instructions

Click a UI element by aria-label, data-name, text content, or class substring

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": {
      "by": "<by>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "ui_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
byYesSelector strategy
valueYesValue to match against the chosen selector strategy

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 says 'Click' without addressing side effects, waits, visibility requirements, failure behavior, or what happens if multiple elements match. For a UI automation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information about the tool's function or selector options, and it is easy to parse.

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 two-parameter action tool, the description plus schema captures the core invocation. However, it omits important operational context such as whether the element must be visible, what happens on failure, and how this relates to mouse-coordinate clicking. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum values for 'by'. The description essentially restates the selector strategies rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Click') and the resource ('a UI element'), and specifies the selector strategies: aria-label, data-name, text content, or class substring. It does not explicitly distinguish ui_click from the sibling ui_mouse_click, but the selector-based approach gives useful differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ui_mouse_click, ui_hover, or ui_find_element. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback strategies, or contexts where selector-based clicking is appropriate.

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