compute_services_resume_compute_poolResume an idle or suspended SPCS compute pool by passing its name, restoring compute capacity for workloads that need it.
Resume an idle or suspended SPCS compute pool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_name | Yes | Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / pool_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Quote names that aren't all uppercase, exactly as list tools return them."v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the precondition that the pool must be idle or suspended, but does not disclose asynchronous behavior, required permissions, or expected post-resume state beyond what annotations imply.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The operation and its precondition state are stated immediately.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter), an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. A minor gap is that it does not mention error behavior when the pool is not idle/suspended, but overall it is complete for correct invocation.
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%, and the single parameter pool_name already has quoting guidance in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Resume) and resource (SPCS compute pool) with the qualifying state (idle or suspended), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate from alternatives such as suspend/describe, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 'idle or suspended' implies a precondition for use, which is helpful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings (e.g., suspend_compute_pool, describe_compute_pool) or what happens if the pool is in another state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.