mcp-uptime-kuma

Update Maintenance

updateMaintenance

Updates an existing maintenance window. Only the fields you provide are changed (the server merges them with the stored window). monitorIDs replaces the full monitor list.

Instructions

Updates an existing maintenance window. Only the fields you provide are changed (the server merges them with the stored window). monitorIDs replaces the full monitor list. To switch a window on or off use pauseMaintenance / resumeMaintenance.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cron`	No	Cron expression for when the window starts, e.g. "30 3 * * *" (03:30 daily), for the cron strategy
`title`	No	Title of the maintenance window
`strategy`	No	Scheduling strategy (see createMaintenance)
`timezone`	No	Timezone the dates and times are in (e.g. "America/New_York", "UTC"). Omit to follow the server timezone.
`weekdays`	No	Days of week (0=Sunday … 6=Saturday) for recurring-weekday strategy
`dateRange`	No	[start, end] as local wall-clock times in the window's timezone, e.g. ["2026-10-08T10:00", "2026-10-08T12:00"] — the format Uptime Kuma's own UI stores. Required for single; optional bounds for recurring strategies; ignored for manual.
`timeRange`	No	Daily [{hours, minutes}, {hours, minutes}] start and end. Required for the recurring-* strategies, ignored otherwise.
`monitorIDs`	No	IDs of the monitors this window suppresses. A window with no monitors suppresses nothing. On update this REPLACES the current list; pass [] to detach all.
`daysOfMonth`	No	Days of month (1-31) for recurring-day-of-month strategy
`description`	No	Description or reason for the maintenance
`intervalDay`	No	Interval in days for recurring-interval strategy
`maintenanceID`	Yes	The ID of the maintenance window to update
`durationMinutes`	No	How long each window lasts, in minutes, for the cron strategy

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`msg`	No
`monitorIDs`	No
`maintenanceID`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.12.0Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key behavioral trait: the update is a merge, so unspecified fields are preserved rather than cleared. It also flags the one field with replace-not-append semantics. It omits permission requirements and any irreversibility/validation notes, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the merge contract, then the sibling routing rule. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 13-parameter tool with one required field and full schema coverage plus an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious semantics (merge, list replacement) and the alternative tools. Remaining omissions (auth, side effects on suppressed monitors) are minor given the schema does the parameter-level work.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the monitorIDs replace behavior, which the schema already documents verbatim, and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Marginal value over structured fields.

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 ('Updates an existing maintenance window') and explicitly names the sibling tools that handle a confusable adjacent operation (pauseMaintenance / resumeMaintenance for on/off toggling). An agent can distinguish this update tool from the pause/resume pair 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear routing rule for the most likely confusion: 'To switch a window on or off use pauseMaintenance / resumeMaintenance.' It also clarifies the partial-update contract. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from createMaintenance or getMaintenanceWindows, leaving a small gap.

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