Progress of a mean-reversion scan started with start_mr_scan.
Returns `{task_id, status, progress, message, dashboard_url}`. When the
scan has finished, the answer also carries `result`, with the names
that passed and the closest misses (`candidates`), and `report_url`, the
report, which the run's card in the chat shows.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuine lifecycle context: the partial payload during the run, the extra `result`/`report_url` fields only after completion, and where the report surfaces in the chat card.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then the return shape and completion-state differences. Mostly efficient; the trailing clause about the chat card is slightly ornamental but adds UI context.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of documenting the response keys and their conditional presence, plus the origin of `task_id`. Only the polling cadence and terminal-status semantics are left implicit.
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?
One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only indirectly implies `task_id` is the identifier produced by `start_mr_scan`, without stating the expected format or that it is the task id, not a name.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (progress of a mean-reversion scan) and anchors it to the sibling that creates the task, `start_mr_scan`, which cleanly separates it from `get_pairs_scan_progress` and other progress tools.
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 link to `start_mr_scan` plus 'when the scan has finished' implies a polling usage pattern, but the description never explicitly says to call it repeatedly, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives for retrieving results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.