Skip to main content
Glama

Resume check

resume_check
Idempotent

Resume a paused check so it runs and alerts again. Its status returns to pending until the next run or heartbeat reports in. Resuming a check that isn't paused changes nothing. Needs the checks:pause permission. Returns the check.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "resume_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCheck id (check_…).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
statusYes
expires_onYes
configurationYes
dashboard_idsYes
status_reasonYes
last_activity_atYes
notification_group_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the resulting state transition ('status returns to pending until the next run or heartbeat'), confirms idempotency behavior in prose, and names the required 'checks:pause' permission. That is meaningful context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Four short sentences, each front-loading the most important fact: action, resulting state, edge case, and permission requirement. No filler and no repetition of the title alone.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema available, the description covers action, state effect, no-op condition, and authorization. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('Check id (check_…).'), the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the id format or constraints, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Resume a paused check') along with the observable effect ('runs and alerts again'), which inherently distinguishes it from the sibling pause_check. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear precondition (the check must be paused) and an explicit no-op case ('Resuming a check that isn't paused changes nothing'), plus a permission prerequisite. It stops short of naming pause_check as the inverse alternative, but the condition for use is unambiguous.

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