Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gifts_regen

Destructive

Regenerate a gift by its ID through the Aeza API, returning updated gift data for the specified record.

Instructions

Gifts regen POST /gifts/{id}/regen

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": "gifts_regen"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

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, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is partly covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what gets invalidated by a regen, whether prior codes stop working, or whether auth/permissions are required. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation this is a significant gap.

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 brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy; the second line is raw HTTP trivia that duplicates the transport layer rather than informing the agent. There is no front-loaded explanation of the action.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an undocumented parameter and no output schema needs far more than a name and an endpoint. Nothing tells the agent what the call returns or what state change to expect, so the definition is inadequate for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single `id` parameter. The path template "{id}" weakly implies it identifies the gift being regenerated, but there is no statement of whether it is a gift ID, code, or type, nor of expected format or range.

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?

"Gifts regen" essentially restates the tool name, and the only added content is the raw endpoint "POST /gifts/{id}/regen". An agent can infer this is a write operation on a gift resource, but what "regen" actually does (regenerate a code? refresh a gift? re-issue?) is never stated, and nothing differentiates it from siblings like gifts_get_by_code or gifts_edit.

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 call this versus any sibling, no preconditions, and no statement of consequences. The description is a name plus an HTTP route, leaving the agent to guess at the triggering scenario.

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