threatlocker-mcp

maintenance_mode_insert

Schedule a maintenance mode for computers by setting start/end times, selecting users or applications, and defining automatic or manual approval conditions.

Instructions

Add to Maintenance Schedule

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "maintenance_mode_insert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Request body.
`organization_id`	No	Override the default organization (ManagedOrganizationId header).
`override_organization_id`	No	Optional OverrideManagedOrganizationId header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., creation of a schedule, potential conflicts), required permissions, or idempotency. The tool likely creates a new maintenance entry, but this is not explicitly stated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too minimal for a tool with a complex nested schema. It could benefit from additional context without being verbose. The structure is adequate but not optimized for quick understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complex input schema (nested body with many fields) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, required fields, or the impact of parameters. The description needs to be more informative to be contextually complete.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Add to Maintenance Schedule' indicates the tool creates a maintenance schedule entry, but it is vague and does not differentiate from related tools like 'maintenance_mode_end_by_id' or 'computer_update_maintenance_mode'. The verb 'add' is clear, but lacks specificity about what exactly is being added.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Sibling tools include various maintenance mode operations, but no comparisons are made.

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

Deploy Server