Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TradingView-MCP

TradingView-MCP

by tedorigawa001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_analysis_alerts

Preview or create TradingView alerts for Confirmation, Invalidation, and Target 1 from an audited analysis overlay, verifying Pine source and chart binding first. Read-only unless confirm=true.

Instructions

Preview or create bounded, one-shot TradingView price alerts for Confirmation, Invalidation, and Target 1 from one audited Bushido Analysis Overlay. It verifies the exact Pine source, chart binding, analysis_id, current price, existing owned alerts, and post-create readback. Without confirm=true it is read-only. It never uses webhooks, email, SMS, broker APIs, or orders.

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": {
      "pine_id": "<pine_id>",
      "expected_symbol": "<expected_symbol>",
      "expected_timeframe": "<expected_timeframe>",
      "analysis_id": "<analysis_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_analysis_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
popupNoShow a TradingView popup. Default: true
confirmNoMust be true to create alerts. Default: false
pine_idYes
play_soundNoPlay TradingView's calling sound. Default: false
analysis_idYes
chart_indexNo
mobile_pushNoNotify in the TradingView app. Default: true
expected_symbolYes
expected_timeframeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.10

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses the read-only default, the confirmation gate, the verifications performed (Pine source, chart binding, analysis_id, current price, existing owned alerts, post-create readback), and exclusions such as no webhooks, email, SMS, broker APIs, or orders. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, verification behavior, and safety boundaries. The key safety information about confirm=true is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain what the return value looks like, though it hints at 'post-create readback.' For a 9-parameter mutation tool, the description covers core invocation and safety but leaves return format and exact failure conditions unspecified, making it adequate but not complete.

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 only 44%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented required parameters. It adds meaning around confirm=true and mentions analysis_id and Pine source/chart binding verification, but it does not explicitly explain pine_id, expected_symbol, expected_timeframe, chart_index, or output behavior. The schema patterns and 'expected_' prefix provide partial semantics, so the description adds moderate value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it previews or creates bounded, one-shot TradingView price alerts for Confirmation, Invalidation, and Target 1 from an audited Bushido Analysis Overlay. It also distinguishes itself from pure listing tools by emphasizing creation and verification, so an agent can tell it apart from list_alerts.

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?

The description clearly explains the preview-versus-create behavior: 'Without confirm=true it is read-only.' This gives the agent an explicit condition for invoking mutation versus safe preview. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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