Skip to main content
Glama
fclairamb

SolidPing

Official
by fclairamb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

create_maintenance_window

Schedule a maintenance window and optionally assign checks or check groups in the same call. Set a one-off or recurring period to suppress alerts during planned work.

Instructions

Schedule a new maintenance window. Optionally attach checks in the same call by passing checkUids — the underlying service does this in two steps but the tool handles it for you.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endAtYesRFC3339 end timestamp (required), e.g. "2026-05-03T23:00:00Z". Must be later than startAt.
titleYesHuman-readable title (required), e.g. "DB upgrade".
startAtYesRFC3339 start timestamp (required), e.g. "2026-05-03T22:00:00Z". Must be earlier than endAt.
checkUidsNoOptional list of check UIDs to apply maintenance to in one shot. Example: ["uid1","uid2"]. Pass an empty array (or omit) for no checks.
recurrenceNoOne of "none", "daily", "weekly", or "monthly". The cadence is anchored to startAt: "daily" repeats startAt's time-of-day every day; "weekly" repeats on startAt's weekday; "monthly" repeats on startAt's day-of-month (clamped to the last day of shorter months). Each occurrence lasts endAt - startAt. Omit (or "none") for a one-off window. iCalendar RRULE strings are NOT supported.
descriptionNoOptional free-text description of the work.
recurrenceEndNoRFC3339 timestamp at which a recurring window stops repeating. Only meaningful when recurrence is set.
checkGroupUidsNoOptional list of check-group UIDs to apply maintenance to. Example: ["groupUid1"]. Pass an empty array (or omit) for no groups.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.32.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral fact: the underlying service does the operation in two steps but the tool handles it atomically. However, it does not mention side effects, permission needs, or failure behavior for this mutating operation.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the compound behavior (checkUids handling) is explained in the second sentence without wasting words.

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?

The description covers the creation intent and the notable check-attachment behavior for an 8-parameter tool. The main gap is the lack of any statement about what the tool returns (e.g., the created window object or UID), which matters since no output schema is provided.

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% and each parameter is documented with formats, examples, constraints, and recurrence semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Schedule a new maintenance window." The note about attaching checks in the same call also differentiates it from sibling set_maintenance_window_checks, making the operation unambiguous.

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?

It clearly situates the tool for creating a new window and implies the alternative of attaching checks later via the two-step service mention. It does not explicitly enumerate when to use update/delete/set-maintenance-checks instead, leaving a small gap in routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools