Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

domains_create

Destructive

Create a new domain through the Aeza API to add and manage domain resources for DNS and billing workflows.

Instructions

Domains create POST /domains

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "domains_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, and non-read-only, so the risk profile is available structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not indicate that this is a billable/irreversible provisioning action, that availability should be checked first, or what happens on failure — a notable gap for a destructive operation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is short but not efficient — it is under-specified rather than concise. Repeating the tool name and the raw HTTP route consumes the whole description without delivering usable information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive, open-world mutation with a nested required body and no output schema, the description supplies essentially nothing an agent needs: no payload expectations, no side effects, no follow-up steps, no response information.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is a nested body object with a required "name" field that the description never mentions. An agent learns nothing about the expected payload shape, format, or validation rules of the "name" field from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the tool name ("Domains create") and adds only the HTTP verb and path ("POST /domains"). It conveys that a domain is created but offers no scope, no distinction from sibling tools like domains_create_record, and no detail on what a domain creation entails.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domains_create_record, domains_check_domain_available, or domains_get. No prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools