Skip to main content
Glama
cirwel

UNITARES

by cirwel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

self_recovery

Destructive

Lift a pause or hold on your own agent: check status, quick-resume with capped risk, or review-resume with a written reflection recorded in the shared knowledge graph.

Instructions

Lifts a pause or other hold on your own agent. action='check', the default, changes no stored state, and both resuming actions verify you own the agent. Neither resume path runs while a void is active; quick also caps risk at 0.40, review at 0.65 plus a written reflection (20+ characters) on what happened, which is recorded in the shared knowledge graph under your agent whether or not it resumes. An attempt that reaches the safety checks stamps a fresh recovery_attempt_at even when they refuse it, so a retry is not a no-op; a missing reflection is rejected before that stamp. To resume an agent you do not own use operator_resume_agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNoRecovery action: check (diagnose), quick (fast resume), review (with reflection)check
reasonNoBrief reason (optional for action=quick)
agent_idNoUUID; leave unset for yourself.
conditionsNoRecovery conditions (optional for action=review)
reflectionNoWhat went wrong and what you'll change (required for action=review)
continuity_tokenNoSame-process rebind proof only; never a cross-process resume.
client_session_idNoBinding id for calls in this process; not a cross-process proof.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description
      Previous value: -"UNIQUE agent identifier; optional when session-bound (auto-injected)."New value: +"UUID; leave unset for yourself."
    • changedInput schema / properties / client_session_id / description
      Previous value: -"In-session binding id from start_session()/identity(); pass it on same-process calls. Not a cross-process proof."New value: +"Binding id for calls in this process; not a cross-process proof."
    • changedInput schema / properties / continuity_token / description
      Previous value: -"Ownership proof from onboard()/identity(), for same-live-process rebinds only. Not a cross-process resume credential."New value: +"Same-process rebind proof only; never a cross-process resume."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations covering the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds substantive behavior: check is a pure no-op, neither resume path runs while a void is active, a refused attempt still stamps recovery_attempt_at, a missing reflection is rejected before that stamp, and the reflection is written to the shared knowledge graph regardless of outcome. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and virtually every clause carries a distinct behavioral fact rather than filler. It is dense and multi-clause, which slightly taxes readability, but nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter, mutation-class tool with no output schema, the description covers triggers, mode selection, constraints, and side effects. The one gap is that it does not describe what action='check' returns diagnostically, which an agent calling the default mode would benefit from knowing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds requirements beyond the schema: the reflection minimum of 20 characters and its graph-recording side effect, and the risk caps attached to quick vs review. It also reinforces that continuity_token is a same-process-only proof, matching the schema hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lifts a pause or other hold on your own agent') with immediate scope narrowing ('your own agent'). It also names the routing alternative operator_resume_agent, so an agent can tell it apart from the resume tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete mode semantics (check = no state change, quick = fast resume at 0.40 risk cap, review = 0.65 cap plus a 20+ character reflection) and a clear exclusion ('To resume an agent you do not own use operator_resume_agent'). Slightly implicit on the top-level trigger ('use this when your agent is paused'), which keeps it from a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools