TradingView MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run a market screener

market_screen

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screens market symbols using TradingView's scanner API to filter and identify trading opportunities. Specify scan criteria in the request body to retrieve matching instruments.

Instructions

Run a market screener request. Local mode returns the currently loaded symbol.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "market_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Compatible /api/screener/scan JSON body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral detail ('Local mode returns the currently loaded symbol') but does not explain remote mode or any other runtime behavior, leaving the safety and mode semantics partially uncovered.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the only meaningful behavioral detail, earning a top score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite good annotations and schema coverage, the tool has no output schema and a nested request object. The description leaves the remote-mode behavior and expected response format unspecified, which is a notable gap for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter has a meaningful schema description ('Compatible /api/screener/scan JSON body'). The description does not add further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Run a market screener request') and the concept of a screener clearly distinguishes it from sibling quote/search tools. However, it closely echoes the title and adds only one behavioral note about local mode, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like market_get_quotes, market_search, or market_get_capabilities. The phrase 'Local mode returns the currently loaded symbol' hints at behavior but does not clarify intended use cases or exclusions.

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