Pause heartbeat monitors to temporarily stop alerting and silence notifications without deleting the monitor; only heartbeat monitor types are supported.
Pause a heartbeat monitor to temporarily stop alerting. Only heartbeat monitors are supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitor_id | Yes | Monitor ID to pause | |
| monitor_type | Yes | Type of monitor, only heartbeat is supported |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect and temporary nature, but does not specify permissions required, what happens to already-triggered alerts, idempotency, 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the key constraint. No wasted wording.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and supported scope. However, with no annotations it leaves meaningful behavioral gaps around permissions and post-pause effects.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the heartbeat-only constraint for monitor_type but adds no syntax, format, or identifier details beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Pause a heartbeat monitor.' It also states the effect ('temporarily stop alerting') and the supported scope ('Only heartbeat monitors'), making the action clear relative to the sibling resume_monitor tool.
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?
It gives a clear use case ('temporarily stop alerting') and an explicit restriction ('Only heartbeat monitors are supported'). It does not explicitly mention when to use resume_monitor instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.