Resume a paused lead signal watch. Also the way to retry a watch the system paused as lead-unreachable: resuming resets the failure counter and the daily refresh starts again. Counts against the workspace's active-watch cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watchId | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing resuming resets the failure counter, restarts daily refresh, and counts against the workspace's active-watch cap. Annotations declare idempotent=true, readOnly=false, destructive=false; the description adds useful side-effect context without contradicting those hints.
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?
Three concise sentences, each carrying distinct information: the primary action, the retry semantics, and the quota side effect. No filler or repetition, and the most important usage is front-loaded.
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-ID mutation with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description provides the key behavioral consequences: failure-counter reset, daily-refresh restart, and active-watch cap. It does not describe error cases or prerequisites, but none are essential for this low-complexity resume action.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references the workspace's active-watch cap, indirectly explaining workspaceId's role, and 'watch' implies watchId, but it does not explicitly define either parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema constraints are simple, making this adequate but not thorough.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Resume a paused lead signal watch.' It further clarifies the retry use case (system-paused due to lead-unreachable), which distinguishes it from pause_signal_watch, resume_signal_agent, and other sibling resume tools.
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 states when to use the tool: for paused watches and for watches the system paused as lead-unreachable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the two use cases are concrete and sufficient for selection.
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.
Many tools share the same verb prefix (create_, list_, update_, get_) across closely related resources, so pairs like add_lead_to_external_list vs add_lead_to_sequence, create_signal_agent vs create_signal_watch, and approve_review vs approve_content_post can be confused. The descriptions are unusually detailed and cross-referenced, which mitigates but does not eliminate the ambiguity inherent in a 282-tool surface.
Virtually every tool follows the campaignstack_verb_noun snake_case pattern, which is highly predictable. Minor deviations exist: destructive operations mix remove_ and delete_ (remove_lead_list vs delete_campaign), AI generation uses both craft_ and generate_, and the seo_/search_console_ subdomains introduce a second prefix convention.
282 tools is an extreme mismatch by any reasonable standard, exceeding the 50+ threshold by more than 5x. Even for a full B2B outreach platform, this surface is far too large and would be better consolidated into higher-level operations or grouped sub-servers.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering campaigns, workflows, leads, content, ads, SEO, integrations, billing, and more with CRUD-level depth. Minor gaps remain: no single-ICP getter, no direct pause/delete for search watches, and no explicit delete for ad campaigns (only archive via update).
