Resume a paused LastPing monitor by setting paused=false, so alerting starts again on the next missed ping. Requires a write-scope API key and the monitor UUID.
Requires an API key with the write scope or higher. Resume a paused LastPing monitor (paused=false). Alerting resumes on 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?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: requires write scope, transitions the monitor to paused=false, and clarifies that alerting resumes on the next missed ping. It does not contradict the annotations; idempotentHint=true is consistent with resuming a monitor.
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 authorization requirement is front-loaded, followed by the action and its consequence. Every sentence contributes essential information.
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 action with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the state change, and the post-condition. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 already documents the single required parameter with 100% coverage ('Monitor UUID'), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resume') plus a specific resource ('paused LastPing monitor') and the exact target state (paused=false). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like pause_monitor and snooze_monitor.
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 states a precondition (API key with write scope or higher) and scopes the tool to paused LastPing monitors, which gives clear contextual usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.