pause_trackerPause the measurement of an active tracker. The score series is kept; start_tracker resumes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracker_id | Yes | The UUID of the tracker: call list_trackers to find it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the score series is kept and that the action is reversible, which goes beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention error conditions like pausing an already paused tracker.
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?
Two sentences with essential information front-loaded. No redundant words; each sentence adds value.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior and state transition. It does not describe error handling or side effects for invalid inputs, but this is acceptable for a straightforward action.
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% with a clear description of tracker_id. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'pause' and the resource 'tracker,' specifying it pauses measurement of an active tracker. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that 'start_tracker resumes it.'
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 it should be used for active trackers and mentions resumption via start_tracker, providing good context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions go out of their way to separate near-neighbor concepts like surfaces vs corroborations and score series vs raw responses. A few related pairs (get_results/get_responses, get_credits/get_usage, create_surface/create_corroboration) could still be confused at a glance, so it is not a perfect 5.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern across all 67 tools, with clear families like create_, update_, get_, list_, archive_, restore_, and delete_. Minor quirks such as topup_credits as one word do not break the overall uniformity.
67 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, even for a broad brand-monitoring domain. The surface is bloated with lifecycle variants per entity, and the sheer number makes the server hard to navigate and prompt against.
The server covers full lifecycles for projects, trackers, surfaces, corroborations, quests, logbook entries, keyword discoveries, competitor scans, link targets, sources, support, and billing. Archive/restore and soft-delete paths prevent dead ends, and nearly every obvious workflow has a corresponding tool.