Skip to main content
Glama
chapmanjw

Rutherford MCP Server

by chapmanjw

continue_job

Resume a completed job with a new prompt, inheriting session context and configuration from the original run to continue work in a new direction.

Instructions

Continue a completed durable job with a new direction, picking up where the kept run left off.

job_id is the id of a kept run under <jobs_dir>/ (the run_dir name a persisted result carries). A delegate job resumes its one session (else re-injects the prior prompt + answer); a consensus panel resumes each voice's session and re-aggregates under the recorded strategy; a debate resumes each seat's session and argues rounds MORE rounds (rounds is ignored for the other kinds). The parent's record supplies the roster, model, working dir, role, files, and -- for a panel -- the strategy / stances / per-seat steering, all inherited unless overridden here. A seat whose agent cannot reload its ACP session is recorded as a failed voice, never silently dropped. The continuation is a fresh run linked to the parent (continued_from) -- the parent is never mutated. The trust gate is re-applied fresh and defaults to read_only (panels are read-only deliberation regardless). persist (default true) keeps the continuation as its own durable child job. mode="async" runs it as a background job and returns a job_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNosync
roleNo
filesNo
modelNo
effortNo
job_idYes
promptYes
roundsNo
persistNo
timeout_sNo
safety_modeNo
working_dirNo
trust_workspaceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the parent is never mutated, trust gate defaults to read_only, panels are read-only, persistence default, and async mode returns job_id. It mentions that failed ACP sessions are recorded, not silently dropped. However, it does not cover error handling for other cases or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers many details in a single paragraph. While every sentence adds value, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers job types, inheritance, persistence, mode, and important defaults. However, it lacks details on output for sync mode and full error scenarios beyond the ACP failure case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains job_id, prompt, rounds, persist, and mode. It states that model, working_dir, files, and role are inherited unless overridden, adding meaning. But parameters like safety_mode, timeout_s, trust_workspace, and effort are not individually addressed, leaving gaps.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool continues a completed durable job with a new direction, picking up where the kept run left off. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it works on completed jobs and describes different job types (delegate, consensus, debate) with specific behaviors.

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 explains when to use the tool: to continue a completed job. It details how different job types (delegate, consensus, debate) behave, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, though sibling names are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chapmanjw/rutherford-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server