Resume a paused Temporal schedule by providing its schedule ID, optionally with a namespace and note, to restart automated workflow executions.
Resume a paused schedule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Note explaining why the schedule was resumed | |
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| schedule_id | Yes | The schedule ID to unpause |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states the state transition but omits permissions required, idempotency, error behavior if the schedule is not paused, and any side effects of resuming.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it is too sparse to be considered appropriately sized.
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?
The tool is a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining operational behavior. It only states the basic action, leaving permissions, failure modes, and side effects unaddressed.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents schedule_id, note, and namespace. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource: 'Resume a paused schedule.' It clearly identifies the operation as the inverse of pausing and the target as a schedule, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like pause_schedule or trigger_schedule.
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 phrase 'paused schedule' implies the precondition for use, so an agent can infer it should only be called on an already-paused schedule. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus pause_schedule, trigger_schedule, or other schedule lifecycle tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.