Resume a paused event trigger by ID and immediately rerun its probe so monitoring continues.
Resume a paused trigger. Its probe runs again right away.
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the probe runs again immediately, signaling a prompt side effect. It omits what happens if the trigger is not currently paused and whether the call is idempotent.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste, purpose front-loaded before the behavioral note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and immediate effect adequately. The main residual gap is the relationship to trigger_activate, which matters given the sibling list.
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% and the single trigger_id parameter is documented with a pointer to trigger_list. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Resume a paused trigger'), which is clearly distinct from trigger_pause. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling trigger_activate, which an agent could reasonably confuse with resume.
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?
The phrase 'a paused trigger' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to trigger_activate or trigger_draft, which is the main ambiguity in this sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.