Skip to main content
Glama
PHUICMT

mcp-mt5

by PHUICMT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gen_tester_inputs

Destructive

Generates a [TesterInputs] block from EA source inputs and optionally writes it to a tester.ini file for backtesting configuration.

Instructions

Generate a [TesterInputs] block from EA inputs.

If write_to points at a tester.ini, the block is appended/replaced in-place.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesAbsolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file.
write_toNoOptional tester.ini path; when given the [TesterInputs] block is written into it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"Absolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file."
    • addedInput schema / properties / write_to / description
      Added value: +"Optional tester.ini path; when given the [TesterInputs] block is written into it."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "gen_tester_inputsDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context by specifying that the block is 'appended/replaced in-place' when write_to points at a tester.ini. This clarifies exactly what gets modified without contradicting 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two crisp sentences lead with the core purpose and immediately follow with the important side effect. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema and annotations, the description provides the main invocation flow and side-effect warning. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly say what happens when write_to is omitted, and the 'appended/replaced' wording could be more precise about overwrite semantics.

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 the baseline applies. The description adds some semantic color—'from EA inputs' and the in-place write behavior—but most parameter meaning is already captured by the property descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: generating a `[TesterInputs]` block from EA inputs, and it clarifies the optional file-writing behavior. It distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like extract_inputs and patch_tester_ini through the explicit block target, though it does not name a sibling directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: use it to generate a `[TesterInputs]` block, optionally writing it to a tester.ini. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as extract_inputs or patch_tester_ini, so an agent must infer selection from the name and context.

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