pause_monitorPause a LastPing monitor to stop alerts while continuing to receive pings. Set paused=true by monitor UUID to silence notifications without disabling monitoring.
Requires the write scope or higher. Pauses a monitor (paused=true): it still receives pings but raises no alert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the required write scope, and the non-obvious behavior that pings continue to arrive while alerting stops. That effect (reversible, non-destructive silencing) is not derivable from the annotations alone.
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 no filler. The permission prerequisite is front-loaded, followed by the effect, which is the order an agent needs to evaluate before calling.
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 single-id idempotent mutation with an existing safety annotation set and no output schema, the description supplies the auth prerequisite and the operational consequence of pausing. Only the relationship to sibling state-changing operations (resume/snooze) is absent, which is a minor gap.
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 parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as the monitor UUID. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a fully covered single-param tool.
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 ("Pauses a monitor") and clarifies the resulting state with "paused=true". It is clearly distinguishable from delete_monitor or update_monitor, but it never names the closely related siblings resume_monitor or snooze_monitor, so the boundaries between those operations are left implicit.
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 only implied: an agent can infer you pause when you want alerts silenced. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from snooze_monitor, which is the natural alternative an agent would want compared against pause_monitor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.