aeza-mcp

gifts_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing gift's comment by ID to modify gift details through the Aeza API.

Instructions

Edit gift PUT /gifts/{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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "gifts_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`body`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the HTTP verb: it does not say what data can be overwritten, whether the whole gift is replaced by PUT semantics, or what permissions are required.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The endpoint line is arguably the only informative content and even it is not framed for an agent.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with a nested request body, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema. For that complexity the description provides essentially nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely or correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The nested body object (which contains a single optional-looking 'comment' field) and the required numeric id are left entirely undocumented, so an agent cannot know what to send.

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?

"Edit gift" essentially restates the tool name gifts_edit with no additional specificity; the only added signal is the raw endpoint "PUT /gifts/{id}". It does not say what aspect of the gift is edited or how it differs from siblings like gifts_regen or gifts_use_code.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the many gifts_* siblings. An agent must guess whether this tool applies to purchasing, regenerating, or code use cases.

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

Deploy Server