Monitoring AIops

resume_sensor

Destructive

Resumes a paused PRTG object to restore monitoring coverage after maintenance or an intentional pause in Monitoring AIops.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Resume a paused PRTG object (inverse of pause_sensor).

Args: object_id: PRTG object id to resume. target: Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default.

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>"
    },
    "name": "resume_sensor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`object_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the description's [WRITE] tag largely restates structured data. It adds a 'risk=medium' qualitative severity signal and the inverse relationship to pause_sensor, but does not explain permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond what annotations give.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the WRITE/risk tag and the one-line purpose, then tight arg notes; no filler. Slightly terse on object_id but nothing wasted.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, both args, and risk level adequately. Missing only operational context such as permission requirements or behavior if the object is not paused.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does clarify the non-obvious 'target' parameter ('Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default'), which the bare schema property does not, but object_id is only restated ('PRTG object id to resume') with no format or source hints.

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 ('Resume a paused PRTG object') and proactively names the sibling it inverts ('inverse of pause_sensor'), which lets an agent distinguish it from pause_sensor 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?

The 'inverse of pause_sensor' framing clearly implies when to use it (objects that are currently paused), and the target arg note explains the default target. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g. that the object must first be paused), so it stops short of a 5.

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