zapi-mcp

set_maintenance

Idempotent

Create a Zabbix maintenance window to suppress new problem notifications for hosts selected by location tag or exact host name during a given time range.

Instructions

Create a Zabbix maintenance window, selecting hosts by location tag OR by explicit host name (exactly one of the two -- not both, not neither).

Unlike acknowledge_problem (which only marks existing problems as seen), this suppresses NEW problem notifications for the matched hosts during the window.

IMPORTANT -- idempotency key is name + since (not the target): the two selection modes (location vs. hosts) can't collide with each other, but within the SAME mode, calling again with the same name/since always returns the FIRST window created under that name/since, even if this call's location/hosts is different. A second call with a different target but a name/since that collides with an earlier one (same mode) silently protects nothing for the new target (no error, no window created for it) -- pick a name that uniquely identifies the actual target whenever more than one maintenance might be open around the same time (shigechika/zapi-mcp#59).

IMPORTANT -- since/till are naive local-server-time strings: parsed and converted via the MCP server process's own timezone, not a fixed zone. If the server doesn't run in the timezone you mean, convert first.

Args: since: Window start, "%Y/%m/%d %H:%M:%S" (e.g. "2026/08/10 11:00:00"), interpreted in the MCP server process's local timezone till: Window end, "%Y/%m/%d %H:%M:%S", same timezone caveat as since name: Maintenance window name prefix (the start time is appended). Also the idempotency key together with since -- see above description: Free-text reason, shown in the Zabbix UI location: Value of the hosts' "location" tag to match (e.g. "CIT"). Mutually exclusive with hosts. hosts: Comma-separated exact host (technical) names, for when the affected hosts don't share a location tag or precise host-level control is wanted. No per-port selection. Mutually exclusive with location.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`till`	Yes
`hosts`	No
`since`	Yes
`location`	No
`description`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact idempotency key (name+since, not the target), the silent no-op failure mode with a cross-mode caveat, and the local-server-timezone parsing of since/till. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then routes tasks with IMPORTANT markers, so a skimming agent still captures the critical idempotency and timezone caveats. It is longer than typical and the bug-reference aside (shigechika/zapi-mcp#59) adds bulk, though the content does earn its place.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers all inputs, the selection-mode exclusivity, the timezone pitfall, and the idempotency trap. Return values are handled by the output schema, so 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.

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents every parameter including formats ('%Y/%m/%d %H:%M:%S' with an example), the name-prefix behavior, the mutual exclusivity of location/hosts, and the no-per-port limitation. Nothing material is left to the schema titles.

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 ('Create a Zabbix maintenance window') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its sibling acknowledge_problem by contrasting what each does to problem notifications. An agent can differentiate it from get_maintenance_windows without opening either 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 states that exactly one of location/hosts must be supplied (not both, not neither) and gives the condition selecting each mode. It also names the alternative tool (acknowledge_problem) and explains when its behavior differs, so routing is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server