Resume a paused uptime monitor so it continues checking a site or service. Use it to restart monitoring after maintenance or a temporary outage.
Resume a paused monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource id (uuid) | |
| project | No | Project id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the precondition 'paused' and says nothing about side effects, what happens if the monitor is already running, or required permissions.
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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of omitting useful 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?
For a simple state-toggle mutation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves gaps around behavior when the monitor is not paused and routing versus pause_monitor.
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 id, project, and workspace are all documented in the schema itself, including that project/workspace may be omitted for defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (resume) and resource (monitor) plus the precondition (paused). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling pause_monitor, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'paused monitor' — the reader infers it should be used to bring a paused monitor back online. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of the natural alternative pause_monitor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.