mcp-server-worldquantbrain

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get simulation status

get_simulation_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a WorldQuant BRAIN simulation by ID to see if it finished, resume waiting, and retrieve the resulting alpha or batch child list.

Instructions

Check or resume a simulation. A finished one includes its alpha; a batch lists children.

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": {
      "simulation_id": "<simulation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_simulation_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wait_seconds`	No	Seconds to wait for completion; 0 checks once.
`simulation_id`	Yes	Id from simulate_alpha.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alpha`	No
`quota`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`alpha_id`	No
`children`	No
`progress`	No
`next_step`	No
`from_ledger`	No
`simulation_id`	Yes
`elapsed_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior about result shape varying by simulation type, but the word 'resume' creates ambiguity about whether the call can advance or restart a simulation despite readOnlyHint=true — that tension is left unresolved.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler, and the check/resume action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic ('includes its alpha', 'lists children') but still compact and readable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and both parameters are documented. What remains missing for a polling tool is the resume semantics, the relationship to `simulate_alpha`/`simulate_alphas_batch`, and any guidance on choosing `wait_seconds` for long-running simulations.

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%, including the meaning of `wait_seconds` (0 = check once) and the provenance of `simulation_id`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior such as what `wait_seconds` does to latency or what happens when the wait elapses.

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+resource pair ('Check or resume a simulation') and hints at two result shapes (finished alpha vs. batch children). It is clear what the tool returns status for, but it never names `simulate_alpha`/`simulate_alphas_batch` as the producers of the id, so sibling differentiation 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Check or resume' implies the polling context, and the schema's "id from simulate_alpha" note anchors the prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no statement about how `wait_seconds` should be chosen, and no routing toward the simulate siblings.

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