mcp-uptime-kuma

Get Maintenance Windows

getMaintenanceWindows

Returns all maintenance windows defined in Uptime Kuma, each with monitorIDs — the monitors it suppresses. A window with an empty monitorIDs list suppresses nothing.

Instructions

Returns all maintenance windows defined in Uptime Kuma, each with monitorIDs — the monitors it suppresses. A window with an empty monitorIDs list suppresses nothing.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`maintenanceWindows`	Yes	Array of maintenance windows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.0Oct 12, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / maintenanceWindows / items / properties / monitorIDs

Added value: +{
+  "description": "IDs of the monitors this window suppresses",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / maintenanceWindows / items / properties / strategy / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "single",
-  "recurring-interval",
-  "recurring-weekday",
-  "recurring-day-of-month",
-  "manual"
-]New value: +[
+  "single",
+  "recurring-interval",
+  "recurring-weekday",
+  "recurring-day-of-month",
+  "cron",
+  "manual"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.11.9Aug 21, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.0.0-devAug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it handles this by clarifying the semantics of the returned monitorIDs field and explicitly noting that an empty list suppresses nothing, a subtlety an agent would likely misread. It does not say anything about permissions, pagination, or caching, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by one high-value clarification about empty monitorIDs. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and for a parameterless read tool there is little else an agent needs in order to call it correctly. The one ambiguity worth pre-empting — the meaning of an empty monitorIDs list — is addressed directly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description responsibly uses the space to explain the meaning of a field in the response instead.

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 verb and resource ('Returns all maintenance windows defined in Uptime Kuma') and goes further by describing the payload shape (each with monitorIDs). An agent can immediately tell this is the read-all counterpart to createMaintenance/updateMaintenance/deleteMaintenance/pauseMaintenance.

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 implied — this is the enumeration call for maintenance windows — but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. For a zero-argument read tool the inference is easy, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than deficient.

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