checkly_list_maintenance_windowsList all maintenance windows (periods where alerts are silenced). Public API: GET /v1/maintenance-windows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Page size. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'list all' and the API endpoint, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence defining the purpose and one line for the API endpoint. No unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema, and the description assumes familiarity with the Checkly API to understand the response format. Adequate for a simple list operation but could be more helpful.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning for the page and limit parameters.
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?
Clearly states it lists all maintenance windows and defines what they are (periods where alerts are silenced). Distinguishes from sibling tools like checkly_create_maintenance_window.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied but not stated, with no exclusion criteria or context clues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources (checks, groups, results, statuses, etc.). However, `checkly_get_check_alerts` vs `checkly_list_check_alerts` could be confused, though descriptions help clarify per-check vs account-level.
All tools follow a consistent `checkly_verb_noun` pattern, using `get`, `list`, and `create` appropriately. No mixing of styles.
22 tools cover a broad monitoring domain reasonably well, but a few resource types (e.g., dashboards, snippets, runtimes) with only list operations may be underutilized.
The tool set is heavily read-only; only maintenance windows and variables have create operations. Missing create/update/delete for checks, groups, alert channels, and other core resources, limiting agent ability to manage the account.