Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

domains_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single domain's details by its ID from the Aeza API, returning configuration and DNS record data for inspection or management.

Instructions

Domains get GET /domains/{id}

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "domains_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of error behavior for unknown IDs, access requirements, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short lines with no wasted prose, and the resource and endpoint are front-loaded. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it is concise but not informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least state what a domain record contains and what happens when the ID is invalid. Neither is covered, and the one parameter is undocumented, leaving the definition thin relative to the tool's role alongside many sibling domain tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required "id" parameter, so the description carries some burden. The "{id}" path template does communicate that the value identifies the domain in the request URL, which is modest added meaning beyond the bare number type, but format/type expectations remain unstated.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ("Domains get") plus the raw HTTP endpoint "GET /domains/{id}". The path does hint that a single domain is fetched by ID, but no plain-language statement of what is retrieved or how it differs from domains_get_list is given, making this close to tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as domains_get_list or domains_get_records_list. The agent must infer from the name and path that this fetches one domain rather than listing several.

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