Progress of a walk-forward started with start_walkforward.
Returns `{task_id, status, progress, message, dashboard_url}`;
progress moves window by window. When the run has finished, the answer
also carries `result`, the same summary `summarize_workflow` gives, 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior: progress advances window by window, and on completion the payload gains `result` (same as `summarize_workflow`) and `report_url`. It stops short of enumerating status values or describing error/unknown-task behavior.
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 the key fact, but the trailing clause 'which the run's card in the chat shows' is UI fluff that adds no calling information, and the multi-line prose with backticks is slightly ragged. Nothing else is wasteful.
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 carries return-value documentation and does so adequately: it lists the base fields and the completion-time additions. The main gap is the absence of status enum values and polling expectations, which an agent needs to decide when to stop calling.
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?
Single `task_id` parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description indirectly explains it by referencing the run started with `start_walkforward`, so the agent can infer the value comes from that call, but no format or validity constraints are given.
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+resource: retrieves progress of a walk-forward started with `start_walkforward`, explicitly naming the sibling that produces the task. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings (get_backtest_progress, circuit_progress, etc.) by tying itself to the walk-forward run, though it doesn't contrast itself against the 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_walkforward` implies when to call it, and the finished-state behavior hints at polling. But there is no explicit polling guidance, no statement of what to do if the task is still running, and no contrast with `list_my_running_tasks` or the sibling progress tools.
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.