mcp-mt5

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

deploy_ea

Destructive

Deploy a compiled Expert Advisor to MetaTrader's Experts directory by supplying the absolute path to the .ex4/.ex5 binary. Deprecated: use deploy(file, name) instead.

Instructions

DEPRECATED (removed in 0.6.0): use deploy(file, name).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	File name to use inside Experts/.
`source_ex`	Yes	Absolute path to the compiled .ex4/.ex5 binary.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0Sep 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"File name to use inside Experts/."

addedInput schema / properties / source_ex / description

Added value: +"Absolute path to the compiled .ex4/.ex5 binary."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "deploy_eaDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.4.1Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

While annotations already label this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool is removed in version 0.6.0 and should not be invoked. This is a meaningful disclosure beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't explain the tool's original behavior—acceptable for a deprecated stub.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, and the deprecation warning is front-loaded. High signal-to-noise ratio.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a deprecated tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent not to use it and where to go instead. No additional details are needed, and the presence of an output schema further reduces burden.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantics about parameters, but the baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full meaning.

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 explicitly states that the tool is deprecated and directs the user to the successor `deploy(file, name)`, making the purpose and replacement unambiguous. It's not a tautology; it informs the agent that this tool is obsolete and not for use.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit instruction on when to use this tool (never, since deprecated) and expressly names the alternative, `deploy`, satisfying the 'when-not' and 'alternative' guidance perfectly.

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