Skip to main content
Glama

checkly

by io.usefulapi

Create maintenance window

checkly_create_maintenance_window
Destructive

MODIFIES THE CHECKLY ACCOUNT: schedules a maintenance window that silences alerts for a time range (e.g. during a deploy). Omit repeatUnit for a one-off window. Public API: POST /v1/maintenance-windows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesMaintenance window name.
tagsNoTags of checks/groups to include in the window.
endsAtYesEnd time, ISO-8601.
startsAtYesStart time, ISO-8601 (e.g. 2026-07-15T22:00:00.000Z).
repeatUnitNoFor a recurring window: DAY, WEEK, or MONTH. Omit for one-off.
descriptionNoOptional description.
silenceAllAlertsNoSilence alerts for ALL checks (overrides tag scoping).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description aligns with destructiveHint annotation and adds detail: it modifies the Checkly account, silences alerts, and provides the public API endpoint. No contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given 7 parameters and 3 required, the description provides essential usage context (e.g., repeatUnit, silencing alerts). No output schema exists, so return value behavior is not explained, but schema covers parameters sufficiently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions omit repeatUnit for one-off, but otherwise does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool schedules a maintenance window that silences alerts, using a specific verb ('schedules') and resource ('maintenance window'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like listing maintenance windows.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance to omit repeatUnit for one-off windows, implying usage during deploys. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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

All checkly toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources (checks, groups, results, statuses, etc.). However, `checkly_get_check_alerts` vs `checkly_list_check_alerts` could be confused, though descriptions help clarify per-check vs account-level.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `checkly_verb_noun` pattern, using `get`, `list`, and `create` appropriately. No mixing of styles.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools cover a broad monitoring domain reasonably well, but a few resource types (e.g., dashboards, snippets, runtimes) with only list operations may be underutilized.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is heavily read-only; only maintenance windows and variables have create operations. Missing create/update/delete for checks, groups, alert channels, and other core resources, limiting agent ability to manage the account.

Resources