Retrieve scheduled maintenance windows for a project or workspace to anticipate downtime and prepare for service interruptions.
List scheduled maintenance windows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default project of the workspace. | |
| workspace | No | Workspace id (from list_workspaces). Omit to use the default one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no scope of listing (all projects/workspaces vs. filtered), no pagination or ordering behavior, and no auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — nothing to trim. However, its extreme brevity leaves it borderline under-specified, so it is not maximally helpful despite being maximally short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a low-complexity read-only list tool with only two optional, fully documented parameters and complete annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials. The only real gap is that it never states whether the listing spans all workspaces/projects or just the default scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both optional parameters (project, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and where the ids come from. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a clear verb (List) and resource (scheduled maintenance windows), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling covers maintenance windows, so the risk of confusion is low.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the name and description; there is no statement of when to call it, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative tools to consider. For a simple read-only list tool this is minimally viable rather than misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.