TradingView MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove price level

chart_remove_level

Remove a labeled horizontal price level from TradingView charts using its unique ID, keeping your chart clean and up to date.

Instructions

Remove a labeled horizontal price level by id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "chart_remove_level"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Remove', which is a destructive operation on chart state, but annotations include destructiveHint: false. This is an Annotation Contradiction: a delete/remove operation should be marked destructive. The description provides no additional behavioral context beyond the contradictory annotation.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and target, which is ideal for a simple one-parameter removal tool.

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 one-parameter, simple removal tool, the description is minimally viable: it states what is removed and by what identifier. However, it omits where the id comes from, any return/error behavior, and the annotation contradiction lowers confidence. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter, 'id'. The phrase 'by id' adds minimal meaning and does not explain the id format, how to obtain it, or what happens if the id does not exist. More parameter-level context is needed.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('labeled horizontal price level'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like chart_remove_indicator, chart_remove_series, and chart_remove_zone. The title and schema align on the 'id' parameter.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for removing a horizontal price level by id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention that the id should come from chart_add_level or chart_get_state. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.