Resume a paused human-in-the-loop Langflow workflow by supplying its job ID, pending request ID, and an optional decision payload.
Resume a paused human-in-the-loop workflow with the pending request ID and optional decision (Langflow 1.11.x).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Workflow job ID | |
| decision | No | Optional HITL decision payload | |
| request_id | Yes | Pending HITL request ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.2Input schema / properties / decision / descriptionPrevious value: -"HITL decision payload"New value: +"Optional HITL decision payload"Input schema / properties / decision / typePrevious value: -"object"New value: +[
+ "object",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Pending HITL request ID",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "job_id",
- "decision"
-]New value: +[
+ "job_id",
+ "request_id"
+]v4.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the trigger context. It does not explain what the optional decision payload does when null, whether resuming is reversible, permission/auth requirements, or what the tool returns. Significant gap for a mutation-style tool.
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 no wasted clauses; the verb and target lead. The trailing '(Langflow 1.11.x)' version note is slightly extraneous but harmless.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a nullable decision payload, the description is too thin for an agent to call confidently. It omits what a 'HITL decision payload' should contain, what happens on resume, and the result shape.
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%, so the parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description echoes request_id and decision but omits job_id and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 (a paused human-in-the-loop workflow), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_workflow, stop_workflow, and list_pending_workflows. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings — the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.
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 trigger condition ('a paused human-in-the-loop workflow') implies when the tool applies, but the description never names alternatives or the prerequisite flow, e.g. using list_pending_workflows to obtain the request_id. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.