Monitoring AIops

schedule_maintenance_prtg

Destructive

Schedule a time-boxed maintenance window for a PRTG object to pause monitoring for a set number of minutes and prevent alerts during planned work.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Time-boxed maintenance window (a pause of minutes).

Requires minutes > 0 — maintenance windows are never open-ended.

Args: object_id: PRTG object id to place in maintenance. minutes: Maintenance duration in minutes (must be > 0). target: Monitoring target name from config; omit for the default.

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>",
      "minutes": "<minutes>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_maintenance_prtg"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`minutes`	Yes
`object_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent, but the description earns credit by adding behavior annotations don't carry: the window is time-boxed and minutes must be > 0 because 'maintenance windows are never open-ended'. It still omits what happens on repeated calls or whether the action is reversible.

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?

The risk/write tag and the key constraint (minutes > 0, never open-ended) are front-loaded before the Args block, and every sentence carries information. No padding or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, three params, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the constraint, the object scope, and the default behavior. What's missing is minor: no statement of required permissions or the return/confirmation shape, though no output schema exists to offload that to.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: object_id is 'PRTG object id to place in maintenance', minutes is the duration with a stated > 0 constraint, and target is a config name that can be omitted for the default. All three parameters gain meaning absent from the bare schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (schedule) and resource (maintenance window) scoped to a PRTG object, and the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag plus 'PRTG object id' implicitly distinguishes it from the generic schedule_maintenance and zabbix_create_maintenance siblings. It's clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names the alternative it replaces.

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?

The description conveys that this places an object into maintenance and that target can be omitted for the default, which implies the usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names the sibling maintenance tools (schedule_maintenance, zabbix_create_maintenance) as alternatives.

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