Pause or resume an existing trigger without deleting it. Get the updated trigger status and trigger ID in response.
Pause or resume an existing trigger without deleting it. Returns trigger_id and the updated status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paused | No | Set true to pause, false to resume (default: true). | |
| trigger_id | Yes | Trigger ID to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering retry safety and non-destructive nature. The description adds the behavioral nuance of 'without deleting it', but does not describe error conditions, auth, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. Given the annotation coverage, the added value is modest.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action, resource, key distinction (not deleting), and return payload. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, effect, and return information. With annotations providing idempotency and safety profile, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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% with clear descriptions for trigger_id and paused (including the default). The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameters, as it does not mention parameter format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema documents parameters thoroughly.
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 states a specific verb (pause/resume), a specific resource (existing trigger), and explicitly notes it does not delete the trigger, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_trigger. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly separated from other trigger operations.
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 'without deleting it' implicitly contrasts with delete_trigger, suggesting this tool is for temporary suspension rather than permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so some inference is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.