Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tradingview-capture

tradingview-capture

by sunkailun1992
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_retry

Retry failed and pending symbols from an existing batch with its original settings, including history_from, and return a job ID immediately.

Instructions

Retry the failed and pending symbols of an existing batch with the batch's own settings, history_from included. Returns a job id at once.

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": {
      "output_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "capture_retry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_dirYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the retry uses the batch's own settings, includes history_from, and returns a job id immediately, but it does not describe permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens to already successful symbols.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no irrelevant detail. The immediate job-id return is useful and does not clutter the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need less explanation, but this is a mutation-style retry tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter. The description should do more to cover parameter meaning and operational safety for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There is one required parameter, output_dir, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description therefore does not compensate for the undocumented parameter at all.

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 plus resource: retry failed and pending symbols of an existing batch. It clearly differs from capture_start by scoping the operation to an existing batch, though it does not explicitly name capture_start or capture_status as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage context: retry only failed and pending symbols of an existing batch, using that batch's settings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool for starting a new batch, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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