Resolves #include dependencies in MQL4/5 source files to identify the full file set needed for compilation.
DEPRECATED (removed in 0.6.0): use inspect_source(source, aspects=["includes"]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Absolute Windows path to the .mq4/.mq5/.mqh source file. | |
| mql_root | No | MQL root for <angle> includes. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / mql_root / descriptionAdded value: +"MQL root for <angle> includes."Input 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": "resolve_includesDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true entertaining, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's deprecation status. The description adds that the tool is deprecated and removed in 0.6.0, which is critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction, and the deprecation disclosure is transparent.
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 description is a single sentence with zero waste. It immediately front-loads the DEPRECATED flag and the replacement instruction, making it highly efficient for an agent scanning options. Perfect minimalism for a deprecation notice.
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 is complete in guiding an agent away from it, and the output schema exists for return type context. However, it doesn't explain what the tool originally returned or its historical behavior, which could be relevant if an agent encounters old references. Given the strong deprecation guidance, a 3 is fair.
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?
With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents both parameters (source and mql_root). The description adds no new meaning about these parameters, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description's deprecation notice implies the parameters are irrelevant, but that doesn't enhance semantics.
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 a deprecation notice rather than a statement of what the tool does. It says it is deprecated and directs users to use inspect_source instead, but does not mention what resolve_includes actually does (e.g., resolving include dependencies in MQL source files). The verb is missing; the purpose is only implicit.
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 explicitly tells users not to use this tool and to use inspect_source with aspects=['includes'] instead, which is a strong usage exclusion. However, it does not explain when this tool was used or under what conditions an agent might still encounter it, such as backward compatibility or migration contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.