healthchecksio_pause_checkPAUSES a check — disables monitoring without deleting it (it stops going down for missed pings until it next receives a ping or is resumed). This MODIFIES live monitoring config. Healthchecks: POST /checks/{uuid}/pause (empty body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | The check's UUID to pause. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: missed pings no longer trigger downs, the state auto-clears on the next ping, and live monitoring config is modified. It is consistent with destructiveHint=true (config mutation) and does not contradict it. It could still note whether the change is reversible only via resume.
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 tight sentences plus the endpoint; the action and its non-destructive scope are front-loaded, and every clause (state change, alert suppression, auto-recovery, endpoint) carries information an agent needs.
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 one-parameter state-mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, effect, and endpoint adequately. It omits what the call returns or whether paused state is idempotent, but those gaps are minor for this tool's complexity.
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% and the single uuid parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the parameter itself, only the REST path POST /checks/{uuid}/pause, which is endpoint context rather than parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb (PAUSES) and resource (check) with immediate clarification of what pausing means: 'disables monitoring without deleting it'. This clearly separates it from sibling delete_check (destructive removal) and resume_check (undo), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.
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?
Explains the scenario that selects this tool — temporarily silencing a check without removing it — and the parenthetical 'until it next receives a ping or is resumed' implies resume_check as the reversal path. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly the way an ideal routing statement would.
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.