MartinLoop — Stop Runaway Loops, Bad Code & Token Waste

martin_pause

Destructive

Pause a MartinLoop run with a durable receipt before risky follow-up work. Select by file, loopId, or latest, and add reason and requester for audit.

Instructions

Write a durable pause receipt for one canonical MartinLoop run. Provide exactly one selector: file, loopId, or latest; runsDir changes the run-store root, while reason and requestedBy add audit context. Use for a temporary hold before risky follow-up work. This records a request and does not kill a process; use martin_cancel to abandon work or martin_continue to resume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	No	Path to one canonical run record or directory. Mutually exclusive with loopId and latest.
`latest`	No	When true, targets the latest canonical run. Mutually exclusive with file and loopId.
`loopId`	No	Canonical MartinLoop run identifier. Mutually exclusive with file and latest.
`reason`	No	Optional non-empty reason recorded in the pause receipt.
`runsDir`	No	Optional run-store root override used to resolve loopId or latest.
`requestedBy`	No	Optional human or runtime identity label recorded for audit context.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	The control action that was recorded.
`loopId`	Yes	MartinLoop run identifier the control was applied to.
`reason`	No	Human-readable reason for the control, if provided.
`controlId`	Yes	Unique receipt ID for this control action.
`requestedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp when the control was recorded.
`requestedBy`	No	Identity that requested the control, if provided.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.9Sep 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / file / description

Added value: +"Path to one canonical run record or directory. Mutually exclusive with loopId and latest."

addedInput schema / properties / latest / description

Added value: +"When true, targets the latest canonical run. Mutually exclusive with file and loopId."

addedInput schema / properties / loopId / description

Added value: +"Canonical MartinLoop run identifier. Mutually exclusive with file and latest."

addedInput schema / properties / reason / description

Added value: +"Optional non-empty reason recorded in the pause receipt."

addedInput schema / properties / requestedBy / description

Added value: +"Optional human or runtime identity label recorded for audit context."

addedInput schema / properties / runsDir / description

Added value: +"Optional run-store root override used to resolve loopId or latest."

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.6Aug 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "action": {
+    "description": "The control action that was recorded.",
+    "enum": [
+      "pause",
+      "cancel",
+      "continue"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "controlId": {
+    "description": "Unique receipt ID for this control action.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "loopId": {
+    "description": "MartinLoop run identifier the control was applied to.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "reason": {
+    "description": "Human-readable reason for the control, if provided.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "requestedAt": {
+    "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp when the control was recorded.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "requestedBy": {
+    "description": "Identity that requested the control, if provided.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "loopId",
+  "action",
+  "controlId",
+  "requestedAt"
+]

First observedv0.3.9Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the tool 'records a request and does not kill a process' and that the receipt is durable. However, it does not explain what destructive side effect the destructiveHint refers to, such as overwriting prior pause state or mutating the run record, so the behavioral disclosure remains incomplete.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core verb-resource pair is front-loaded, selector requirements follow immediately, and the guidance about when not to use it is packed into the final clause. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter tool with a oneOf constraint and existing annotations, the description covers the selector rule, optional parameter purposes, the intended use case, and how this tool differs from its closest alternatives. The output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated in prose.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds value by grouping file, loopId, and latest as mutually exclusive selectors and by summarizing runsDir as the run-store root and reason/requestedBy as audit context, but this mostly restates or lightly repackages schema information rather than adding deep new meaning.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Write a durable pause receipt for one canonical MartinLoop run.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools by naming martin_cancel and martin_continue, and it frames the operation as a temporary hold rather than termination.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for a temporary hold before risky follow-up work.' It also gives exclusions and alternatives: 'This records a request and does not kill a process; use martin_cancel to abandon work or martin_continue to resume.' An agent can confidently choose between pause, cancel, and continue.

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