Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

feature_flags_get_all_feature_flags

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves all feature flags for the current user, letting an AI agent inspect enabled and disabled flags before making decisions.

Instructions

Get all user feature flags GET /feature-flags

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "feature_flags_get_all_feature_flags"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the raw endpoint path "GET /feature-flags", which restates the operation rather than revealing anything new—no pagination behavior, no result-set size, no rate-limit or auth notes for a list call that could be long.

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?

Two short lines, verb-first and front-loaded, with nothing padded. The trailing "GET /feature-flags" line is borderline redundant with the first sentence but is cheap and does confirm the underlying endpoint.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent still cannot tell what the return payload looks like (array of flags? map keyed by flag name?) or whether results are paginated. A single sentence on the response shape would close the gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description has nothing to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. No parameter behavior is misdescribed or omitted.

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

Purpose4/5

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

"Get all user feature flags" states a specific verb (Get) and resource (feature flags) with scope narrowed to the calling user's flags. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not distinguish itself from any sibling (none of the listed siblings are feature-flag related, so this is mostly moot).

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 named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the unfiltered dump of the current user's flags rather than a per-flag lookup, and the definition does nothing to confirm or deny that.

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