Resume paused download tasks by ID; use list_downloads with status_filter=paused to find eligible tasks. Active or finished tasks are refused.
Resume one or more paused download tasks. An active or finished task is refused for that id (error 405), while the others are resumed. list_downloads with status_filter=paused finds the paused tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_ids | Yes | IDs of the paused tasks to resume, from list_downloads. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Input schema / properties / task_ids / descriptionAdded value: +"IDs of the paused tasks to resume, from list_downloads."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "tool_resume_downloadOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral load and does so: it discloses non-atomic batch semantics — an invalid id fails with error 405 while the remaining ids are still resumed. It doesn't say what the response looks like (counts, per-id results), which is the main remaining gap.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste. The operation and its failure mode are front-loaded, and the discovery hint trails where it belongs.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, precondition, source of IDs, and partial-failure behavior. Only the shape of the return value on partial success is left implicit.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that task_ids is a batch (partial success per id) and where the IDs come from. That is meaningful semantics the schema item description only hints at.
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 (paused download tasks) with explicit scope: 'one or more paused download tasks.' It is clearly distinguishable from the nearby pause_download and delete_download siblings without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a concrete discovery path — 'list_downloads with status_filter=`paused` finds the paused tasks' — and states the precondition (task must be paused, otherwise 405). It does not name the inverse tool (pause_download) explicitly, but the when-to-use context is essentially complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.