Lint MQL4/MQL5 source files to detect code quality issues. Deprecated, use analyze_mql with lint check instead.
DEPRECATED (removed in 0.6.0): use analyze_mql(source, checks=["lint"]).
| 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": "lint_basicDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical deprecation status and the exact replacement call, providing more context than the annotations alone. No contradiction exists.
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?
One sentence front-loaded with DEPRECATED, immediately followed by the replacement. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
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 guidance is complete: the agent is told not to use it and exactly what to call instead. Slightly less than 5 because the description does not define the original behavior, but given the deprecation this is sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, source, is fully described as an absolute Windows path. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed because the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.
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 is primarily a deprecation notice rather than a definition. It never directly states that the tool lints a source file, though the name and the call to analyze_mql(source, checks=["lint"]) make the purpose inferable. This is clear for a deprecated tool, but it doesn't explicitly say what the tool does.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use analyze_mql(source, checks=['lint']) instead, making the correct alternative and invocation unambiguous. It also notes the timeline (removed in 0.6.0), so an agent knows not to rely on this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.