Skip to main content
Glama
forterro

freshservice-mcp

by forterro

manage_maintenance_window

Manage Freshservice maintenance windows: create, update, list, get, or delete them, and optionally link changes and publish status page maintenance.

Instructions

Manage Freshservice Maintenance Windows.

    Maintenance Windows are time-based windows used to schedule planned
    maintenance. They can be associated with Changes and are REQUIRED
    to publish a maintenance on a Status Page.

    ONE-STOP WORKFLOW — Create MW + associate Change + publish on Status Page:
        Call action='create' with:
          - name, description, start_time, end_time (MW fields)
          - change_id (auto-associates MW with the Change)
          - impacted_services (triggers auto-publish on Status Page)

        This single call will:
          a) Create the Maintenance Window
          b) Associate it with the Change (if change_id provided)
          c) Publish it on the Status Page (if impacted_services provided)
          d) Return MW details, association status, and Status Page maintenance

        impacted_services format: [{"id": <service_component_id>, "status": N}]
          Status: 1=Operational, 5=Under maintenance, 10=Degraded,
                  20=Partial outage, 30=Major outage
        To find service_component IDs, use manage_status_page
          action='list_components'.

        ALTERNATIVE: You can also do each step separately:
          - manage_maintenance_window create (without impacted_services)
          - manage_change update with maintenance_window_id
          - manage_status_page create_maintenance with maintenance_window_id

    Args:
        action: One of 'list', 'get', 'create', 'update', 'delete'.
        maintenance_window_id: MW ID (required for get/update/delete).
        change_id: Change ID — if provided on 'create', the new MW
            is automatically associated with this Change.
        name: MW name (required for create).
        description: MW description.
        start_time: ISO datetime — window start (required for create).
        end_time: ISO datetime — window end (required for create).
        workspace_id: Workspace ID (required for create; auto-discovered
            if omitted).
        alert_suppression: Suppress alerts during window (default false).
        impacted_services: If provided on 'create', auto-publishes a
            maintenance on the Status Page after creating the MW.
            Format: [{"id": <service_component_id>, "status": <int>}]
            Status: 1=Operational, 5=Under maintenance, 10=Degraded,
                    20=Partial outage, 30=Major outage.
        notifications: Status Page notification triggers (optional).
            Format: [{"trigger": N, "options": {"value": V}}]
            Trigger: 1=On start, 2=Before start, 3=On complete.
        is_private: Mark the Status Page maintenance as private.
        page/per_page: Pagination (list).
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
pageNo
actionYes
end_timeNo
per_pageNo
change_idNo
is_privateNo
start_timeNo
descriptionNo
workspace_idNo
notificationsNo
alert_suppressionNo
impacted_servicesNo
maintenance_window_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the create-side effects: auto-association with a Change, auto-publishing on a Status Page, and workspace auto-discovery. It also mentions that the call returns MW details, association status, and Status Page maintenance. However, it does not describe update/delete behaviors (e.g., whether delete is irreversible) or any permission/rate-limit constraints, which are significant gaps for a management tool with multiple actions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (purpose, ONE-STOP WORKFLOW, ALTERNATIVE, Args). It is front-loaded with the core concept. Some redundancy exists, such as repeating the impacted_services format in two places, but every sentence adds value for a tool with 14 parameters. Minor conciseness penalty for the repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, multiple actions, output schema), the description covers the primary create workflow, alternatives, and parameter semantics thoroughly. The output schema handles return-value documentation. The main gap is the lack of detail on 'list', 'get', 'update', and 'delete' action specifics, but the overall context is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for the most common create scenario.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by defining every parameter, including formats and requirements. It specifies required params for create (name, start_time, end_time), explains impacted_services with status codes, and details the notifications format with trigger values. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 begins with 'Manage Freshservice Maintenance Windows' and clearly explains what Maintenance Windows are (time-based windows for scheduled maintenance, required for Status Page publishing). It distinguishes itself from siblings like manage_change and manage_status_page by detailing the one-stop workflow that creates, associates, and publishes in a single call, making its unique purpose obvious.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it presents the ONE-STOP WORKFLOW as the primary method and then an ALTERNATIVE step-by-step approach. It also instructs the agent to use manage_status_page action='list_components' to find service component IDs. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternative tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/forterro/freshservice_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server