Auto-pauses job boards with zero paid leads once lead volume is sufficient. Use it to stop investing in weak sources and focus on profitable channels.
Auto-pause boards with paid=0 and enough leads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Auto-pause' is a state-changing mutation, yet the description never says whether pausing is reversible, what permissions it needs, what 'enough leads' thresholds, or what happens to already-paused boards.
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?
A single compact sentence with the condition stated up front and no filler. It is terse to the point of underspecification, but not padded.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for an unannotated bulk-mutation tool the description omits too much: what qualifies as 'weak', how many boards are affected, and whether the action can be undone. An agent cannot predict the blast radius before calling it.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-level for the description to explain; the baseline is 4. The criteria wording ('paid=0', 'enough leads') hints at internal filters but does not correspond to any caller-supplied input.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Auto-pause boards') and adds the selection criteria (paid=0 and enough leads), so an agent can tell it apart from advisory siblings like board_advice or package_prices. It is clear but the criteria terms are undefined.
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 implies the trigger condition (weak boards) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites for invoking it. An agent must infer all of this from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.