Extract input parameters from MetaTrader 4/5 source files to inspect configurable settings. Deprecated: use inspect_source with inputs aspect instead.
DEPRECATED (removed in 0.6.0): use inspect_source(source, aspects=["inputs"]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Absolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / source / descriptionAdded value: +"Absolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "extract_inputsDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important lifecycle context: the tool is deprecated and removed in 0.6.0, which changes how an agent should treat it. It does not describe what happens if invoked, but the deprecation warning is sufficient for a removed tool.
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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED' and immediately followed by the exact replacement. Everything present is useful and nothing is wasted.
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 deprecated tool, the description provides the critical information an agent needs: stop using it and call inspect_source with the correct arguments. Combined with the full schema, safety annotations, and output schema, no important information is missing for correct decision-making.
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 schema covers the single 'source' parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format or behavior, though it does show that 'source' carries over into the replacement call. This is adequate given the high schema coverage.
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 does not explicitly state what extract_inputs does; it only says it is deprecated and removed. The tool name and the replacement call ('aspects=["inputs"]') imply it extracted inputs from a source, but the purpose is inferred rather than stated. This is not a tautology, but it is not a full verb+resource definition either.
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 explicit, actionable guidance: do not use this tool; instead call inspect_source(source, aspects=['inputs']). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling and tells the agent exactly when an alternative should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.