Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tradingview-capture

tradingview-capture

by sunkailun1992
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_status

Check the progress of a TradingView chart capture job using its job ID or output directory, so you can confirm whether images, CSV data, and indicator details are ready.

Instructions

Progress of a capture job, by job_id or by output_dir.

Tool call template

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": "capture_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idNo
output_dirNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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. It does not say this is a read-only lookup, does not say what happens when both or neither identifier are supplied, and gives no error or staleness behavior for an in-flight job.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the addressing modes are stated immediately. It is terse but not padded in any way.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotation coverage and no documented parameter requirements, the definition should at minimum say whether an identifier is required and what the tool does when none is given.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema only offers bare titles and null defaults. The description partially compensates by framing the two parameters as alternative job identifiers rather than independent filters, which is real added meaning, but it leaves the interaction (mutually exclusive? one required?) to inference.

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?

States the resource ('a capture job') and what is returned ('progress'), which distinguishes it from capture_start, capture_retry, and batch_summary. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'By job_id or by output_dir' implies the two addressing modes and that this is a polling/lookup call after a capture_start, but it never states when to prefer one key over the other or what to do if neither is known. No exclusions against siblings like batch_summary are given.

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