Breakage Calendar MCP server

One dated break in full

get_break

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a full Breakage Calendar entry by ID to identify affected changes, verification steps, tested fixes, commands, and vendor sources.

Instructions

The full Breakage Calendar entry for one id: what changes, who is affected, how to check, the fix (with the day we tested it, if we did), the command, and the vendor sources with the day each was last read.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_break"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Entry id, e.g. 2026-11-19-postgres-latest-becomes-19

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: the entry contains the change, affected parties, verification steps, the fix with a tested date, the command, and vendor sources with last-read dates - including the conditional 'if we did' caveat on the tested day.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the colon-separated enumeration of fields is dense but readable. The parenthetical caveat adds precision rather than noise.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return content and does so thoroughly. The only gap is behavior on an unknown id (error vs empty), which is a minor omission for a simple one-parameter read.

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% and the single id parameter already carries an example value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'for one id' without adding format or lookup semantics beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb-and-resource framing ('The full Breakage Calendar entry for one id') that clearly distinguishes a single-entry lookup from list-style siblings. It also enumerates the content areas the entry covers, so the agent knows what it gets.

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 by the phrase 'for one id' - the agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch counterpart to list_upcoming_breaks or the check_* tools. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is stated.

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

Deploy Server