ppdm-mcp-server

resume_policy

Re-enable a paused PPDM protection policy so its scheduled backup jobs run again in the next window. Identify the policy by exact name or a unique partial name.

Instructions

Re-enable a paused PPDM protection policy — scheduled jobs will resume on the next window.

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": {
      "policy_name": "<policy_name>"
    },
    "name": "resume_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`policy_name`	Yes	Policy name — exact, or a partial name that matches only one policy

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key post-condition — scheduled jobs resume on the next window — which is genuinely useful for a mutation. It omits permissions, idempotency, error behavior on a non-paused policy, and whether anything is destroyed or overwritten.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the effect, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what it does, on what target, and the observable outcome. Only the failure/edge behavior on non-paused policies is left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already documents that an exact or uniquely-matching partial name is accepted. The description adds only the 'paused policy' qualifier, which narrows which name is valid but adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Re-enable') with a specific resource ('a paused PPDM protection policy'), so the action is unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with pause_policy rather than naming it, so sibling differentiation is inferred from 'paused' rather than stated outright.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Use is implied: call this on a policy that is currently paused. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about what happens if the policy is already running, and no named alternative, so an agent must infer the preconditions.

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