Retrieve a specific maintenance window by UID to view its title, schedule, recurrence, current status, and upcoming activations.
Get a single maintenance window by UID, including title, schedule, recurrence rule, server-computed status (active/upcoming/past), and nextOccurrences (the next concrete activations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Maintenance window UID returned by list_maintenance_windows. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.32.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'server-computed status' and 'nextOccurrences', giving some insight into the response, but it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. For a simple get operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loads the primary action and resource, and lists the returned fields efficiently without extraneous wording.
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?
The description adequately explains what the tool returns (title, schedule, recurrence rule, status, nextOccurrences), which is essential given the lack of an output schema. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites beyond the UID origin, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.
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?
The schema fully describes the uid parameter with 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'by UID' without adding additional semantic detail such as format, constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (a single maintenance window) and identifies the key differentiator (by UID). It also lists the specific fields returned, distinguishing it from list_maintenance_windows and other maintenance window tools.
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?
The description implies usage when a specific UID is known and a single window's details are needed. The mention that the UID is 'returned by list_maintenance_windows' provides context on how to obtain the identifier, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing all windows).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.