Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gifts_get_by_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve gift details from the Aeza API using a gift code. Provide the code to look up the matching gift record.

Instructions

Gifts get by code GET /gifts/by-code/{code}

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "gifts_get_by_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavior beyond that: no note on what happens when the code is unknown, whether codes are case-sensitive, or whether the lookup requires authentication.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The duplicated 'Gifts get by code' line and raw endpoint path consume the whole payload without adding explanatory value.

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?

Although the tool is a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the format of the code or the shape of the result. For a lookup keyed on an opaque identifier, that information has to come from somewhere and it is absent here.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'code', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does nothing to compensate. It never explains the code's format, where a caller obtains it, or whether it is the same code consumed by gifts_use_code.

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 text "Gifts get by code" restates the tool name almost verbatim, and the only added information is the HTTP route GET /gifts/by-code/{code}. It does not say what a 'gift' is or what retrieving one returns, so it barely distinguishes itself from siblings such as gifts_get_owned_gifts 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus gifts_get_owned_gifts, gifts_use_code, or gifts_get_gift_styles. The only implied usage is 'look up a gift by its code', which an agent could already infer from the name alone.

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