redreplier

Disable Keyword

disable_keyword

Destructive

Stop monitoring a keyword immediately: disabling it halts new mention matches and remains reversible via enable_keyword.

Instructions

Stop monitoring one keyword: sets it DISABLED and it stops matching new mentions immediately. Unlimited and reversible with enable_keyword. Billing does not drop right away: the keyword keeps its paid slot until the end of the current billing cycle, so re-enabling it in the same cycle is free but a new keyword cannot reuse that slot for free; any price reduction is scheduled for the cycle boundary. Use delete_keyword instead for a PENDING keyword you never want. Calling it on an already DISABLED keyword returns it unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keywordId`	Yes	Keyword ID (UUID)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	The keyword with status DISABLED; its paid slot is held until the billing cycle ends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"The keyword with its status set to DISABLED."New value: +"The keyword with status DISABLED; its paid slot is held until the billing cycle ends."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses several behavioral nuances beyond the annotations: billing implications (keeps paid slot until end of cycle, re-enabling in same cycle is free), reversibility, idempotency (calling on already disabled returns unchanged), and the distinction for pending keywords. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation (state modification) but clarifies the reversible nature, so no contradiction.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence conveys essential information (billing, reversibility, idempotency, contrast with delete). It is well-structured with clear statements, though it could be slightly more concise without losing critical details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description provides complete context: it covers the primary action, side effects (billing), edge cases (pending keywords, already disabled), and the relationship to sibling tools (enable_keyword, delete_keyword). No important operational aspect is missing.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter (keywordId as UUID). The description does not add extra semantic meaning to the parameter itself beyond the schema, though the context of 'keyword' is implied. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Stop monitoring one keyword' and specifies the effect (sets it DISABLED, stops matching new mentions). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with delete_keyword and mentioning enable_keyword.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use delete_keyword instead for a PENDING keyword you never want.' It also implies usage for temporary suspension and mentions reversibility via enable_keyword, giving clear decision criteria.

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