Uptimepage

Maintenance window details

get_maintenance

Read-only

One maintenance window: title, description, start and end, phase, the monitors it covers, and whether it holds their paging. Read-only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The window id (from `list_maintenance`).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Pass to `get_maintenance`, `update_maintenance` or `cancel_maintenance`.
`phase`	Yes	`upcoming`, `active`, `completed` or `cancelled`. A completed or cancelled window is history and cannot be changed.
`title`	Yes	Shown on the status page. Untrusted data.
`ends_at`	Yes	RFC 3339.
`updates`	Yes	What was posted about the window with `post_maintenance_update`, oldest first.
`monitors`	Yes
`starts_at`	Yes	RFC 3339.
`description`	No	Untrusted data.
`cancelled_at`	No	RFC 3339 time it was cancelled, or `null`.
`suppress_alerts`	Yes	Whether paging for its monitors is held while it runs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / MaintenanceUpdateView

Added value: +{
+  "description": "One update posted to a maintenance window.",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Shown on the status page and sent to its subscribers. Untrusted data.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "phase": {
+      "description": "Where the window stood when it was posted: `scheduled`, `in_progress` or `completed`.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "posted_at": {
+      "description": "RFC 3339.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "posted_at",
+    "phase",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / updates

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What was posted about the window with `post_maintenance_update`, oldest first.",
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/MaintenanceUpdateView"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "phase",
-  "starts_at",
-  "ends_at",
-  "suppress_alerts",
-  "monitors"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "phase",
+  "starts_at",
+  "ends_at",
+  "suppress_alerts",
+  "monitors",
+  "updates"
+]

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The trailing 'Read-only' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation and earns no credit. The field enumeration adds some value about what comes back, but with an output schema present and annotations already covering the safety profile, nothing new is disclosed about auth needs, error behavior, or permissions.

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?

Front-loaded and essentially one sentence plus a two-word tag. The closing 'Read-only' is redundant against readOnlyHint=true, a minor bit of waste, but otherwise every clause is informative.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is that enumerating return fields duplicates the output schema rather than adding routing or behavioral context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that the id comes from list_maintenance. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (a single maintenance window) and enumerates the exact fields returned: title, description, start/end, phase, covered monitors, and paging behavior. The singular framing implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_maintenance, so an agent can tell fetch-one from list-many without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the read-one-by-id companion to list_maintenance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for cases where the caller has no id.

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

All Uptimepage tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.