Pause an active subscription (status → past_due, no further auto-renew). Use resume_subscription to reactivate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionId | Yes | Subscription ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description | |
| summary | Yes | One-line human-readable summary of the action | |
| renderType | Yes | UI rendering hint for the result |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact status transition to 'past_due' and the fact that auto-renewal stops, while noting reactivation via resume_subscription.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and state change, followed by a relevant pointer to resume_subscription. No wasted words.
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 simple 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior, including the active-subscription precondition, the resulting status, and the reactivation path. No critical context is missing.
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 the parameter 'subscriptionId' described as 'Subscription ID', so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description does not add further parameter details, but this is unnecessary given the high coverage.
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 ('Pause') and resource ('active subscription'), and clearly identifies the state change (status → past_due, no further auto-renew). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_subscription and resume_subscription.
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 mentions resume_subscription as the reactivation path, giving clear context for when to use the reverse operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with cancel_subscription, which could leave the agent guessing about the difference between pausing and cancelling.
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.
Many tools have overlapping boundaries, such as generate_post_cover/attach_post_cover_from_job/upload_post_cover_from_url, update_deal/update_deal_stage/mark_deal_won/mark_deal_lost, and booking status transitions (confirm/cancel/complete/mark_no_show). The catch-all execute_tool adds further ambiguity.
Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, delete_*, restore_*). Minor exceptions like 'clone' and 'execute_tool' are still readable and do not significantly break the pattern.
With 223 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a full CRM platform, this many tools overwhelms context windows and makes tool selection impractical. It far exceeds the reasonable range for an MCP server.
The surface is broad but has notable gaps: no update_booking/delete_booking, no delete_product, no send_message/send_campaign (referenced but absent), and no delete_staff/resource. Some workflows dead-end or require manual approval steps.