signals.pause
Idempotent
Pause tracking for a company
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal_id | Yes | Signal (tracked company) id |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | No |
Refine Job Search
by co.getrefine
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- changed
Output schema / properties / data / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{}New value: +false - removed
Output schema / properties / data / properties / notification_cadenceRemoved value: -{ - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Notification cadence" -} - added
Output schema / properties / data / properties / sync_frequencyAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "How often the company is refreshed" +}
- Added
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description aligns with these (pause implies a non-destructive, repeatable action) but adds no extra behavioral detail about side effects, reversibility, or what exactly gets paused. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-change tool with one parameter, the description is acceptable but lacks context about the pause lifecycle—what happens to the company's signals while paused, whether historical data is affected, and that signals.resume reverses the action. Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally sufficient but not thorough.
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?
The only parameter signal_id has full schema coverage with the description 'Signal (tracked company) id', so the schema already documents it. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage nuance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Pause) and resource (tracking for a company), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling signals.resume and signals.untrack by the verb, though it could briefly clarify that pausing is temporary and reversible.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signals.resume or signals.untrack. An agent is left to infer that pause is for temporary halts, but the description does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or suggest related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.