PingRelay MCP Server

monitor_pause

Idempotent

Set a non-deleted monitor's paused flag in the authenticated organization. An already paused monitor succeeds without toggling its state. Does not change the disabled flag; use MonitorResume to clear the paused flag.

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": {
      "monitorExternalId": "<monitorExternalId>"
    },
    "name": "monitor_pause"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`monitorExternalId`	Yes	External monitor GUID returned as Id by MonitorList or MonitorListRecent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / monitorExternalId / description
```
Added value: +"External monitor GUID returned as Id by MonitorList or MonitorListRecent."
```
First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description still adds real context: existing paused state succeeds without toggling, the disabled flag is untouched, and non-deleted monitors are a precondition. What is missing is the consequence of an invalid/deleted monitor or whether other monitoring behavior (alerts, checks) stops while paused.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the idempotent-state clarification, then the boundary and the alternative. No sentence is redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description supplies the org scope, the disabled-flag boundary, and the resume counterpart. Only edge-case behavior (deleted or nonexistent monitors, effect on alerting) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains that monitorExternalId is the external GUID returned by MonitorList/MonitorListRecent. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a non-deleted monitor's paused flag') plus scope ('in the authenticated organization'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from monitor_resume, which clears the flag. An agent can pick between the two pause/resume siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Clear usage context: pause via this tool, clear the flag via MonitorResume, and the disabled flag is out of scope. It does not spell out explicit 'do not use when' conditions such as a monitor already disabled or in an incident, but the routing to the resume alternative is unusually direct.

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

All PingRelay MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?