unpause_automationUnpause an automation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Automation ID (from list_automations) | |
| parent_id | Yes | Parent report or client ID (from list_reports or list_clients) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The automation, live again, with next_run_at showing when it will next send. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-write, potentially destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds a basic state-change meaning (paused to unpaused) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or consequences of resuming an automation. There is no contradiction with 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short with no filler words and is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified: it omits the state context that the automation must be paused and does not clarify the effect of resuming it.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a complete schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But it does not explain that the automation must already be paused, what resuming it does, or what side effects may occur, leaving an agent with incomplete information for judging consequences.
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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, including where to obtain each ID (list_automations, list_reports, or list_clients). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Unpause an automation' states a clear action and resource, and the verb directly contrasts with the sibling pause_automation. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding no extra detail about what unpausing entails.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say that the tool is for previously paused automations, that it reverses pause_automation, or when it should be selected over related automation tools. The only signal is the inferred antonym relationship with pause_automation.
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.