Resume (re-enable) a paused feed. Returns {feedId, action:'resume', status:'enabled', feedStatus, enabled:true}. feed_id from list_feeds / create_feed; project_id OPTIONAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return object, the action/status values, and the enabled flag. This is meaningful extra behavioral disclosure without contradiction.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then provides response shape and parameter guidance in a compact, scannable format.
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?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency/safety, the description is quite complete. It covers the action, return payload, and identifier provenance. The only notable gap is the missing semantic meaning of project_id, but this is optional and does not block correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that feed_id comes from list_feeds/create_feed and that project_id is OPTIONAL, but it does not explain the purpose or effect of project_id. This is partial compensation but not complete.
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 states a specific verb ('Resume'), resource ('feed'), and semantics ('re-enable a paused feed'), making it distinct from siblings like pause_feed or restore_feed. It also fully specifies the expected effect and return shape.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool — when a feed is paused and needs to be re-enabled. It also gives practical guidance on where feed_id comes from (list_feeds / create_feed), though it does not explicitly rule out alternatives like restore_feed.
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.
Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.
The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.
At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.
