mcp-mt5

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rename_symbol

Destructive

Rename an identifier across MQL files using whole-word matching. Preview changes with dry-run mode, or apply them directly to update source code in a specified project folder.

Instructions

Rename a symbol across MQL files (whole-word match). dry_run=True previews only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`new`	Yes	New identifier.
`old`	Yes	Identifier to rename (whole-word match).
`root`	Yes	Absolute path to the project folder to scan recursively for MQL files.
`dry_run`	No	true = preview the change and write nothing; false = apply it to the files.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.0Sep 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description

Added value: +"true = preview the change and write nothing; false = apply it to the files."

addedInput schema / properties / new / description
```
Added value: +"New identifier."
```

addedInput schema / properties / old / description

Added value: +"Identifier to rename (whole-word match)."

addedInput schema / properties / root / description

Added value: +"Absolute path to the project folder to scan recursively for MQL files."

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.4.1Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

For a tool already marked destructiveHint=true, the description adds a valuable safety detail: dry_run=True previews only. It also clarifies the scope of edits via 'across MQL files' and 'whole-word match'. It does not detail irreversibility, but the annotation already signals destructive behavior and nothing here contradicts it.

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 short sentences with the core action and the key safety caveat front-loaded. No filler, and every clause earns its place.

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 rich input schema, an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is largely sufficient for a correct call. It could still state explicitly that dry_run=false persists changes to disk, though that is fully documented under the dry_run parameter.

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 is 3. The description mostly restates the whole-word constraint and dry_run preview behavior already present in the parameter descriptions. It adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb ('Rename'), a specific resource ('a symbol across MQL files'), and a matching constraint ('whole-word match'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling discovery or formatting tools like find_symbol or format_mql.

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 by 'Rename a symbol across MQL files', and the dry_run note suggests a safe preview workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or conditions for when the destructive path should be chosen.

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