PingRelay MCP Server

maintenance_window_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one non-deleted maintenance-window summary by external GUID in the authenticated organization. Returns title and stored UTC creation/start/end timestamps; this summary does not enumerate affected monitors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "maintenanceWindowExternalId": "<maintenanceWindowExternalId>"
    },
    "name": "maintenance_window_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maintenanceWindowExternalId`	Yes	External maintenance-window GUID returned as Id by MaintenanceWindowList.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / maintenanceWindowExternalId / description
```
Added value: +"External maintenance-window GUID returned as Id by MaintenanceWindowList."
```
First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: non-deleted filtering, organization scoping, and the explicit limitation that affected monitors are not included, which prevents misreading the payload. It could still note not-found/error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and lookup key, then the returned fields. The note about not enumerating monitors earns its place by managing expectations about the result.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers scope, key type, returned fields, and the notable absence of monitor data. It is nearly complete, with only error or not-found behavior left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents the UUID format and provenance, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the identifier is an external GUID and scopes results to the authenticated organization, though it adds little format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: get one non-deleted maintenance-window summary, keyed by external GUID within the authenticated organization. It also explicitly notes that this summary does not enumerate affected monitors, which separates it from a fuller detail or list operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied clearly: retrieve a single window when the external ID is already known, with the schema naming MaintenanceWindowList as where that ID comes from. There is no explicit when-not guidance, though the 'non-deleted' scope implicitly excludes deleted windows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PingRelay MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?