Skip to main content
Glama

Resume a schedule

resume_schedule
Destructive

Switch a paused schedule back on. Its runs cost money, so call it first without approved, tell the person, and call again with approved: true only after they say yes.

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": {
      "schedule_id": "<schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "resume_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approvedNotrue only after the person has agreed.
schedule_idYesThe schedule to switch on (from list_schedules).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds one genuinely important behavioral fact not in the annotations: runs cost money. However, the annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description doesn't elaborate on what the destructive aspect entails (e.g. whether resuming triggers immediate runs, billing exposure, or failure modes). It covers the approval gate but leaves the destructive profile largely to the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed immediately by the cost warning and the required call sequence. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations present, the description supplies the key missing context an agent needs: the cost consequence and the mandatory human-approval flow. Nothing essential is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds real operational meaning to 'approved' by specifying the sequencing (call without it first, then with it after consent) rather than just restating that it means agreement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Switch a paused schedule back on'), and the stated precondition of a paused state cleanly separates it from pause_schedule or set_schedule without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit two-call protocol: first without approved, inform the person, then call again with approved: true only after consent. It is unambiguous about when the tool should and should not be fully executed.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources