device_maintenance_statusCheck whether a device is in maintenance mode by providing its hostname or ID. Get immediate status to avoid alert misinterpretation.
Check if a device is currently in maintenance mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Device hostname or ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does 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 the point-in-time scope ('currently') but no additional behavioral detail such as response shape or edge cases, which is acceptable given the annotations and existing output schema.
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 entire description is one focused, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple single-parameter status check with a complete input schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single hostname parameter, describing it as 'Device hostname or ID'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the schema already carries the burden and the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('device maintenance status'), clearly distinguishing this read-only status query from sibling tools like device_set_maintenance. The phrase 'currently in maintenance mode' makes the tool's exact function immediately understandable.
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 clearly implies this tool should be used when the agent needs to determine a device's maintenance state, rather than change it. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as device_set_maintenance for toggling maintenance mode, so it stops short of a top score, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.