pause_programmeStop the continuous simulation programme and drop everything it had queued. Nothing further will be sent until an owner or admin restarts it in Fallax. Use this when somebody wants simulations to stop: an incident, an outage, a sensitive week. Restarting cannot be done from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Why it is being paused, recorded on the programme and shown to admins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool will 'drop everything it had queued', which is a destructive side effect, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. While the description does disclose useful stateful behavior, the direct conflict with the safety annotation makes it misleading.
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?
The description is three sentences, front-loads the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the effect, the restart limitation, and the usage trigger. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.
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?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema control tool, the description is largely complete: it covers what happens, when to use it, and the restart constraint. It does not explicitly state who is allowed to pause, only that restart requires an owner or admin, so a small authorization gap remains.
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 'reason' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('the continuous simulation programme'), and further clarifies the scope by saying it drops everything queued. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling getter/inspection tools and from exclude_person/explain_send.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when somebody wants simulations to stop: an incident, an outage, a sensitive week') and also gives a clear exclusion by noting restarting cannot be done from here. The agent knows both the trigger and the limitation of the tool.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_programme_status and get_setup_status both report whether the continuous programme is running, and get_program_summary, get_breakdowns, and get_resilience_trend all expose similar rate metrics. Descriptions help clarify the differences, but an agent could still pick the wrong reporting tool for a given question.
All names use a predictable lowercase snake_case verb_noun style with get_, list_, exclude_, pause_, and explain_. The main inconsistency is the program/programme spelling difference between get_program_summary and get_programme_status, and explain_send is a slightly less conventional noun.
12 tools is a well-scoped size for a phishing-simulation insight and safety-control server. Each tool covers a distinct reporting angle or operational action without feeling padded.
The read and analytics surface is thorough, covering summaries, breakdowns, trends, evidence, setup, and individual explanations. However, the operational side is one-directional: exclude_person and pause_programme have no include or resume counterpart, and there is no campaign or person management tooling, leaving explicit dead ends.