signals.resume
Idempotent
Resume tracking for a company
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal_id | Yes | Signal (tracked company) id |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | No |
Refine Job Search
by co.getrefine
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- changed
Output schema / properties / data / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{}New value: +false - removed
Output schema / properties / data / properties / notification_cadenceRemoved value: -{ - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Notification cadence" -} - added
Output schema / properties / data / properties / sync_frequencyAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "How often the company is refreshed" +}
- Added
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey idempotency (idempotentHint=true), read-only status (readOnlyHint=false), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the action is 'resume tracking,' which implies a state change from paused to active, but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., signal must be paused) or downstream effects (e.g., resuming updates/notifications).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise for a simple one-parameter tool.
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?
The tool is simple, has a fully described parameter, and an output schema, so return details need not be explained. However, the description lacks crucial usage context: when to resume versus track, whether the signal must be paused first, and what 'resume' concretely changes for the agent.
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%, and the schema already describes signal_id as 'Signal (tracked company) id.' The description's 'company' loosely maps to this parameter but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description 'Resume tracking for a company' provides a specific verb ('resume') and resource ('tracking for a company'), and the verb differentiates it from siblings like signals.pause and signals.track. However, 'resume' is mildly ambiguous (verb vs. noun) and the description does not explicitly state it means continuing a paused signal.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the counterpart to signals.pause, nor does it distinguish between resuming a paused signal and starting new tracking via signals.track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.