mt5-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compare_reports

Read-only

Compare two Strategy Tester reports field by field to identify differences between baseline and candidate backtest results.

Instructions

Diff two tester reports field by field.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "baseline": "<baseline>",
      "candidate": "<candidate>"
    },
    "name": "compare_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`baseline`	Yes
`candidate`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond 'field by field'. With no output schema, the description should describe what the diff returns (per-field values, missing fields, or a boolean), and it does not.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, but its terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is buried, yet almost nothing useful is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a comparison tool with no output schema, zero parameter documentation, and a rich sibling set, the description leaves out the identifier format and the shape of the diff. An agent could guess at invocation but could not predict or interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the two parameters carry only bare titles, 'Baseline' and 'Candidate'. The description implies they are the two reports but never says whether they are names, paths, snapshot IDs, or report objects, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Diff two tester reports') plus the comparison scope ('field by field'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling compare_profiles. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent is not told how to obtain the report identifiers (read_report, list_snapshots) or when comparing reports is preferable to reading each individually.

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