openactors

Resurrect an Actor run

resurrect-actor-run

Re-run a completed Apify Actor run with the same input and a longer timeout when it timed out. Creates a new run so the original results and diagnosis remain intact.

Instructions

Re-run a finished run with the same Actor and input, optionally with a longer timeout — the usual reason a run needs resurrecting. Creates a new run, so the original's results and diagnosis stay intact.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "resurrect-actor-run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes
`timeoutSecs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says the operation creates a new run and that the original's results and diagnosis stay intact, which is important for an action that could otherwise be confused with modifying or deleting the original run.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the essential behavior and consequence are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and the main parameter use case. It lacks some edge-case guidance, such as what happens if the run is still active or whether only certain terminal states qualify, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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 does add meaning for timeoutSecs by framing it as 'optionally with a longer timeout,' and runId is implicitly tied to the 'finished run' being re-run. However, neither parameter is explicitly mapped to schema fields, leaving some inference required.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Re-run a finished run with the same Actor and input.' It also clarifies the key distinction from related run tools by explaining that this operation creates a new run rather than modifying or resuming the original.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this when a run finished and needs to be re-run, usually to apply a longer timeout. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended situation is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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