mcp-mt5

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

install_include

Destructive

Installs a MetaTrader include file into the Include/ directory from a source path, with optional rename. Deprecated: use deploy(file, name) for .mqh files.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes	Absolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file.
`target_name`	No	File name to use inside Include/.

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 / source / description

Added value: +"Absolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file."

addedInput schema / properties / target_name / description
```
Added value: +"File name to use inside Include/."
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.4.1Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is structured data. The description adds the important behavioral fact that the tool is deprecated/removed, but it does not disclose underlying side effects or failure behavior beyond that. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the critical DEPRECATED/removed status and immediately names the replacement. There is no wasted content.

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?

For a deprecated/removed tool, the description tells the agent everything needed for the decision: avoid this tool and use deploy. It does not explain the original behavior, but that is secondary given the tool is removed and an alternative is named.

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 source and target_name are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does not state what install_include does; it only says it is deprecated, removed in 0.6.0, and suggests using deploy(file, name) with a .mqh file. The actual verb+resource behavior is left to inference from the tool name and schema.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to use an alternative: 'use deploy(file, name) with a .mqh file.' This is clear, unambiguous routing to the correct sibling tool and makes the deprecation actionable.

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