pause_session_taskPause the task currently running in a browser session. Resume it later with resume_session_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The control action that was applied | |
| message | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the task must be 'currently running' and that it can be 'resume[d] later', adding reversible-behavior context beyond the annotations' readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints. It does not elaborate on side effects or failure modes, but the annotations already cover basic safety traits.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler words. Every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present (so no need to explain return values). The description covers the core behavior, the resume path, and the session scoping. It could mention permanent alternatives like stop/terminate, but given the sibling list, the context is reasonably complete.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for sessionId with a description ('Session ID'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter or how to obtain it, but it is not required given the schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Pause'), the resource ('task currently running in a browser session'), and differentiates from siblings by naming the complementary tool 'resume_session_task' for resuming later. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 description says to resume later with resume_session_task, which implies when to use this tool and points to an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for permanent stopping with stop_session_task), so it misses the full when/when-not guidance.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions strongly separate the main overlapping workflow: browser_task, create_session, send_task, and trigger_workflow are all clearly scoped. A few pairs like pause_session_task/stop_session_task and browser_task/send_task could still be confused on name alone, but the explicit usage guidance makes misselection unlikely.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (create_workflow, list_sessions, pause_agent, trigger_workflow), which is consistent and predictable. Exceptions such as browser_task, guardrail_response, and screenshot break the pattern, but they are few and do not obscure the intended resource.
With 21 tools the surface feels heavy for a single server, even though the broad domain of workflows, agents, sessions, tasks, and environments largely justifies the count. Each tool has a purpose, but the set is at the upper edge of what is comfortably scoped.
Session and task lifecycle coverage is strong, and workflows support create, read, update, list, and trigger. However, there is no delete for workflows or agents and no update for agents, leaving notable lifecycle gaps for managing these resources.