Suspend an active service for reasons such as overdue invoices or abuse. Halts service delivery while keeping the record intact for later reactivation.
Suspend an active service (e.g. for overdue invoice or abuse).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason for suspension | |
| service_id | Yes | Service ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that suspension is reversible (only inferable from the unsuspend sibling), what happens to the running service, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and folds the rationale into a parenthetical. No waste, nothing padded.
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?
Adequate minimum: parameters are covered by the schema and the purpose is clear, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema the description omits effect/reversibility/permission context an agent would want.
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?
Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the 'reason' field or accepted service_id formats beyond what the schema already says.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('Suspend an active service'), and the qualifier 'active' narrows the target state. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like paymenter_cancel_service or paymenter_unsuspend_service, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Names concrete triggering scenarios (overdue invoice, abuse), giving an agent clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to cancel_service for permanent termination.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.