Skip to main content
Glama

Resume automation

unpause_automation
Destructive

Unpause an automation. It starts emailing its recipients again on its schedule — confirm before calling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAutomation ID (from list_automations)
parent_idYesParent report or client ID (from list_reports or list_clients)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe automation, live again, with next_run_at showing when it will next send.
successYesTrue when the call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / success / description
      Previous value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "data": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "description": "The automation, live again, with next_run_at showing when it will next send.",
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "success": {
      +      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "success"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral context by explaining that the tool resumes emailing recipients on schedule and advises confirmation before calling. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and its consequence are front-loaded, and the warning is placed at the end without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that flag side effects, the description adequately explains what happens. It could mention that the automation must be paused first, but the schema and sibling context largely fill that gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (id and parent_id) with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Unpause'), names the resource ('automation'), and explains the consequence: it starts emailing recipients on schedule. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_automation and update_automation, even without naming them.

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?

The description implies the use case (resuming a previously paused automation) and includes a warning to confirm before calling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions where it should not be used.

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