list_maintenance_windowsList maintenance windows for a target. Shows scheduled and recurring maintenance periods that suppress alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetId | Yes | The target ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that listed windows suppress alerts, which is useful behavioral context. Yet it does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, though the verb 'List' implies a safe read operation. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentences fully describe the purpose and key behavior without any redundant wording. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 one-parameter list tool, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, scoping, and the alert-suppression effect. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on return values could help, but the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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 targetId described as 'The target ID'. The description does not add additional parameter context, but the schema fully covers the single parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states a specific action (List) and resource (maintenance windows), scoped to a target. The added detail about showing scheduled and recurring periods that suppress alerts distinguishes it from general list tools and other maintenance operations like create_maintenance_window.
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 'for a target' implies the tool is used to retrieve maintenance windows associated with a specific target. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_automation_rules or delete_maintenance_window, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource (targets, runs, findings, incidents, etc.) and action. A few close pairs like active_runs/list_runs and mute_finding/create_muting_rule could confuse, but descriptions clarify the distinctions.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun naming (create_target, get_target, delete_journey). A few outliers use noun phrases (active_runs, daily_trends, system_health, team_stats) which slightly breaks the pattern, but overall the convention is predictable.
74 tools is extreme for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive monitoring platform, this overwhelms agents with too many granular operations (e.g., enable_all_tests vs disable_all_tests vs update_test, or import_targets duplicating create_target). A more consolidated set would be appropriate.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for the monitoring domain: full CRUD for targets, journeys, rules, reports, secrets, and fragments; plus run triggering, incident management, findings handling, SEO tracking, guest scans, and admin tools. Only maintenance windows lack an update operation, which is minor.