Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tradingview-capture

tradingview-capture

by sunkailun1992
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

image_crop

Crop a pixel-defined region from a symbol's captured PNG and return the cropped image as a PNG.

Instructions

Crop a pixel region of a symbol's image.png and return it as a PNG image.

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>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "image_crop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
widthYes
heightYes
symbolYes
output_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully says a PNG image is returned, but omits whether anything is written to disk (a required output_dir strongly implies it), what happens if the symbol has no image.png, and whether cropping is read-only or produces artifacts.

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, naming the action and return type immediately. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

Six required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions leave major gaps: output_dir behavior, image prerequisites, and out-of-bounds handling are all undocumented. Given this complexity the description is far too thin to call the tool safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps symbol and the x/y/width/height box, but never explains output_dir — a required parameter — nor coordinate origin, units, or boundary behavior (clamping vs error) for the region.

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 a specific verb (crop) and resource (a pixel region of a symbol's image.png) with a clear return type. No sibling does image manipulation, so the tool is distinguishable, but the description never names or excludes any alternative explicitly.

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?

No indication of when this should be used versus the capture_* or symbol_data siblings, and no stated prerequisites such as whether image.png must already exist or whether a capture must be run first. The agent must infer the whole workflow.

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