Toggle TradingView fullscreen mode to expand the chart view for focused analysis or presentation.
Toggle TradingView fullscreen mode
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": "ui_fullscreen"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does convey the state-changing and reversible nature of a toggle, but it does not mention side effects, return values, or how the current fullscreen state might interact with the toggle. This is minimal but not misleading.
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, compact sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the operation is fully stated up front.
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 parameterless toggle, the description is functionally complete: an agent knows what action to perform and that no arguments are required. It lacks extra context such as querying state before toggling, but the simplicity of the operation keeps the gap small.
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 there are no semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is needed.
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 ('Toggle') and a clear resource ('TradingView fullscreen mode'), leaving no ambiguity about the operation. It also stands apart from the sibling UI tools, none of which mention fullscreen control.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it is appropriate, or what conditions precede calling it. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.