Skip to main content
Glama
PHUICMT

mcp-mt5

by PHUICMT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validate_tester_ini

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a tester.ini for errors and optionally verifies its [TesterInputs] match EA source declarations.

Instructions

Sanity-check a tester.ini. If source given, cross-check inputs vs EA declarations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configYesAbsolute path to the tester.ini file.
sourceNoOptional EA source; when given, [TesterInputs] keys are cross-checked against its input declarations.

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 / config / description
      Added value: +"Absolute path to the tester.ini file."
    • addedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"Optional EA source; when given, [TesterInputs] keys are cross-checked against its input declarations."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "validate_tester_iniDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conditional behavior that providing `source` triggers a cross-check of [TesterInputs] against EA declarations, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's model of what happens during invocation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated compactly in the second sentence. Every phrase adds information, and there is no redundancy with the schema beyond the necessary repetition of the conditional behavior.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It states the main purpose and the optional cross-check behavior, while the schema handles parameter details and the output schema covers return values. It could be more explicit about when in a workflow this should be used, but nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents both `config` and `source`. The description essentially repeats the schema's explanation for `source` ('cross-check inputs vs EA declarations') without adding new syntax, format, or edge-case details. It does not mislead, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Sanity-check a tester.ini') and adds a conditional cross-check behavior against EA declarations. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like patch_tester_ini (modification), gen_tester_inputs (generation), and read_tester_report (reading results), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 description implies usage: you use it when you need to sanity-check a tester.ini, and the conditional 'If `source` given' gives one usage variant. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisite conditions like running before a backtest. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only an implied one.

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