Resume pending candidate processing in an existing plugin inventory job by specifying the job ID. Use this to continue interrupted or queued inventory tasks.
Resume pending candidates in an existing plugin inventory job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| max_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether it is asynchronous, what side effects occur, whether it blocks, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool with no other behavioral metadata.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and purpose and does not waste words. The structure is appropriately concise for the content it provides.
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 has two parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the meaning of 'pending candidates', the role of max_seconds, or the expected return/behavior. An agent lacks sufficient information to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'existing plugin inventory job' hinting at job_id, but it does not explain max_seconds at all (e.g., timeout or maximum run time). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's names and defaults, leaving both parameters under-documented.
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 uses the verb 'resume' with a specific resource ('pending candidates in an existing plugin inventory job'), clearly stating what it does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like catalog_inventory (which likely starts a new job) and catalog_inventory_status (which checks status), so an agent can tell it apart.
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 description implies usage for an existing job with pending candidates, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools such as catalog_inventory or catalog_inventory_status, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.