Pause a trigger to stop its probe from running until you resume it. Use trigger_id from trigger_list to halt monitoring temporarily.
Pause a trigger: its probe stops running until it is resumed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trigger_id | Yes | The trigger id, as shown by trigger_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real substance: the probe stops running and the state is reversible via resume. It stays silent on what happens to in-flight or queued runs and on any permission requirements, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, effect, and reversal condition. No filler or restatement of the title.
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 one-parameter, non-destructive state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential what and the reversibility. Only edge-case behavior for running or queued executions is left undocumented.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself points to trigger_list as the source of the id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns no bonus.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (pause) and resource (trigger) plus the operational meaning — the probe stops running. It gestures at trigger_resume with 'until it is resumed' but never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 implied by the effect: pause when you want a trigger's probe to stop while keeping it resumable. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-delete, when-not-to-pause, or named alternative such as trigger_resume or trigger_deactivate, leaving the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.