Identify MT4/5 installation paths, terminal hashes, and missing components to report environment readiness for building, deploying, or backtesting.
Resolve and report MT4/5 paths, terminal hash, and missing-component issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "env_infoDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds some useful scope (paths, terminal hash, missing-component diagnosis) but does not explain behaviors like failure modes, output shape, or whether 'resolve' implies any workspace-side effect. The description does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Resolve and report') and immediately lists the relevant resource types, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It is arguably complete enough to invoke correctly, though it would be more complete with a brief note about when to prefer it over sibling terminal-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pairing: it 'resolves and reports' MT4/5 paths, terminal hashes, and missing-component issues. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_terminals or select_terminal, and precisely identifies its focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools such as list_terminals, select_terminal, or list_backtests. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing hints, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.