Skip to main content
Glama

Pause a task

pause_task

Pause an in-progress task to stop its worked-time tracking while no one is working on it; no reason is required.

Instructions

Pauses a task in progress so its worked time stops while nobody works on it (no reason needed).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "pause_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe task: its number, e.g. TASK-000123, or its id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the side effect that worked-time tracking halts. It does not say what happens if the task is already paused, if the task isn't running, or whether the pause is reversible and how, which are the real behavioral risks for a mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the parenthetical about not needing a reason resolves a likely agent question in three words. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete: purpose, precondition, and primary side effect are all present. Only edge-case behavior (already paused, task not started, reversibility) is absent.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the accepted task number/id formats. The description adds no further detail about the identifier, and per the high-coverage baseline no compensation is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Pauses a task in progress") plus the concrete effect on worked time, which lets an agent distinguish it from state-changing siblings like complete_task or move_task. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart resume_task, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"in progress" implies the precondition for use and "(no reason needed)" heads off a common hesitation, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to resume_task/complete_task as alternatives. The agent must infer that pausing is for temporary stops rather than finishing work.

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