resume_monitorResume a paused monitor to restart alerting, with checks resuming from the next missed ping. Use it to reactivate monitoring for cron jobs, CI/CD pipelines, or AI agent runs.
Requires the write scope or higher. Resumes a paused monitor (paused=false); alerting resumes from the next missed ping.
| 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?
Adds real context beyond the annotations: a required authorization scope ('write scope or higher') and the alerting behavior ('alerting resumes from the next missed ping'), which tells the agent about downstream effects. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this is a solid supplement rather than a full behavioral spec (no error behavior if already active).
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, and the authorization requirement is front-loaded. The '(paused=false)' parenthetical is slightly redundant but compact and clarifies the state transition.
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 toggle with no output schema, the description covers the authorization prerequisite, the state change, and the alerting side effect. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/already-active behavior.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents the monitor UUID. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies; 'paused=false' describes the resource effect, not the parameter.
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 (resumes) and a specific resource (a paused monitor), plus the resulting state (paused=false). This is unambiguously the inverse of the pause_monitor sibling, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.
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 'Resumes a paused monitor' implies the precondition (the monitor must be paused), which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never names pause_monitor as the counterpart or states what to do if the monitor is not paused, leaving routing inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.