forms_notifications_restartRestarts a form notification's integration run by notification ID, either synchronously or in the background for later polling.
Run the integration again for that answer.
A result.status of operation means it runs in the background: poll
result.operation_id with operations_get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes | Notification id (integer) from notifications_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only state the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the two-mode execution contract: a result.status of 'operation' means background execution, and the caller must poll result.operation_id via operations_get. That is genuine behavioral value for a mutation tool.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action stated first and the async follow-up second; nothing is padded. Minor deduction for the unexplained referent 'that answer', which could confuse an agent lacking conversation context.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return contract (result.status, result.operation_id) and the polling follow-up, which is exactly what an agent needs here. It omits what the re-run actually does externally and any failure behavior, but it is largely complete for a one-parameter tool.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as a notification id sourced from notifications_list. The description only hints that the notification maps to 'that answer', adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 gives a specific action ('run the integration again') on a clear resource (the integration tied to a notification/answer), and the title reinforces it as 'Restart a Forms integration run'. The deictic phrase 'that answer' assumes prior context, but the intent is still decipherable from the name plus text.
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?
It explains the async return behavior but gives no guidance on when to restart versus related siblings like forms_notifications_cancel or forms_notifications_status_get, nor any prerequisite or error condition. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.