MartinLoop — Stop Runaway Loops, Bad Code & Token Waste

martin_continue

Destructive

Resume a paused Martin run after an approval checkpoint by recording a durable continue request, ensuring the loop can proceed without losing progress.

Instructions

Record a durable continue or resume request for a Martin run after a human pause or approval checkpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	No
`latest`	No
`loopId`	No
`reason`	No
`runsDir`	No
`requestedBy`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	The control action that was recorded.
`loopId`	Yes	MartinLoop run identifier the control was applied to.
`reason`	No	Human-readable reason for the control, if provided.
`controlId`	Yes	Unique receipt ID for this control action.
`requestedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp when the control was recorded.
`requestedBy`	No	Identity that requested the control, if provided.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.6Sep 23, 2026

removedInput schema / oneOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "file"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "loopId"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "latest"
-    ]
-  }
-]

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.6Aug 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "action": {
+    "description": "The control action that was recorded.",
+    "enum": [
+      "pause",
+      "cancel",
+      "continue"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "controlId": {
+    "description": "Unique receipt ID for this control action.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "loopId": {
+    "description": "MartinLoop run identifier the control was applied to.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "reason": {
+    "description": "Human-readable reason for the control, if provided.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "requestedAt": {
+    "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp when the control was recorded.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "requestedBy": {
+    "description": "Identity that requested the control, if provided.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "loopId",
+  "action",
+  "controlId",
+  "requestedAt"
+]

First observedv0.3.9Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about durability and the pause/approval timing, but does not explain side effects such as what state is changed or whether this actually resumes execution. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part earns its place, and the key action and timing are clear immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the tool has six undocumented parameters and no parameter descriptions. One sentence describing purpose is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing at parameter semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation for any of the six parameters: file, latest, loopId, reason, runsDir, and requestedBy. An agent has no guidance about what values are expected or how they relate to a continue request.

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 ('Record') with a clear resource ('a durable continue or resume request for a Martin run') and a precise context ('after a human pause or approval checkpoint'). This semantically distinguishes it from sibling tools like martin_pause, martin_cancel, and martin_run 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 Guidelines4/5

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: after a human pause or approval checkpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is specific enough to guide invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.