Temporarily pause a Temporal schedule by ID to stop future workflow executions, with an optional note explaining the reason.
Pause a schedule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Note explaining why the schedule was paused | |
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| schedule_id | Yes | The schedule ID to pause |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what pausing does, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects running workflows. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action implied by the name.
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 a single, under-specified sentence. While it is brief and front-loaded, it is too terse to be appropriately sized for a mutation tool that lacks annotations and needs to convey operational context.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain behavioral context such as reversibility, side effects, or prerequisites. It omits all such information, leaving the agent with only the input schema to understand the tool's impact.
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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for high coverage is 3 even without description-level parameter information.
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 restates the tool name ('pause_schedule' → 'Pause a schedule') without adding scope, prerequisites, or differentiation from siblings like unpause_schedule. It states a verb and resource but is essentially a tautology, providing no information beyond the name itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unpause_schedule, delete_schedule, or trigger_schedule. The agent must infer context solely from the tool name, with no explicit when/when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.