Pause a LastPing monitor to stop alerts while still receiving pings. Use this to silence notifications during maintenance without disabling monitoring.
Requires an API key with the write scope or higher. Pause a LastPing monitor so it stops alerting (paused=true). The monitor still receives pings but does not 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting the API key requirement ('write scope or higher') and the behavioral detail that the monitor still receives pings but does not alert. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three concise sentences with no fluff: auth requirement, purpose, and behavioral effect. It is front-loaded with the auth requirement and delivers all key information efficiently.
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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, the effect on pings and alerts, and the required scope. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from calling 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Monitor UUID.' The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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+resource: 'Pause a LastPing monitor so it stops alerting (paused=true).' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like resume_monitor and snooze_monitor by specifying the exact effect (stops alerting but still receives pings). The purpose is unambiguous.
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 description provides clear context: pausing stops alerting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like resume_monitor or snooze_monitor, nor does it state when not to use this tool. It gives a clear trigger (want to stop alerting) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.