fettle-mcp

by fettlesh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Get a maintenance window

get_maintenance_window

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a maintenance window's schedule and next three occurrences to confirm when a recurring window will fire next.

Instructions

Read one maintenance window with its schedule and its next three occurrences. It has the list_maintenance_windows fields plus next_occurrences, each with start and end. Use it to confirm when a recurring window fires next. To check a schedule before saving it use preview_maintenance_window; to find a window use list_maintenance_windows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window_id`	Yes	The window's uuid from list_maintenance_windows. An id that is not a window of this organization is a 404.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`rrule`	Yes
`scope`	Yes	Known values: MONITOR, ORG.
`dtstart`	Yes
`enabled`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`monitor_ids`	No
`duration_minutes`	Yes
`next_occurrences`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1Oct 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / window_id / description

Added value: +"The window's uuid from list_maintenance_windows. An id that is not a window of this organization is a 404."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "created_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "dtstart": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "duration_minutes": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "enabled": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "monitor_ids": {
+      "items": {
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_occurrences": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "end": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "start": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "start",
+          "end"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "rrule": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "description": "Known values: MONITOR, ORG.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timezone": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "name",
+    "enabled",
+    "scope",
+    "dtstart",
+    "duration_minutes",
+    "rrule",
+    "timezone",
+    "created_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.5.4Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return payload shape (schedule plus next_occurrences with start/end), but with an output schema present this is largely redundant and it says nothing about permissions or rate limits.

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 the core action, then the usage case, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter read with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents window_id fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Read one maintenance window') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming preview_maintenance_window and list_maintenance_windows. An agent can tell it apart from the other maintenance-window tools without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the selecting condition ('Use it to confirm when a recurring window fires next') and routes to the two alternatives with their own conditions ('to check a schedule before saving it', 'to find a window'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server