Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

recurrent_payments_get_current_recurrent_payment_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the current recurrent payment configuration from Aeza billing, so you can inspect active auto-payment settings before adjusting them.

Instructions

Recurrent payments get current recurrent payment config GET /billing/recurrent-payments/config

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": "recurrent_payments_get_current_recurrent_payment_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the raw HTTP path 'GET /billing/recurrent-payments/config' – no mention of what the config contains, whether it is account-scoped, or any auth/rate-limit context.

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 half of it is a redundant restatement of the tool name and the other half is a raw endpoint string that duplicates the name's meaning rather than adding information. Nothing is wasted in length, but little is earned.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient: an agent knows it is a safe read. It omits what the returned config actually represents, but with no parameters to get wrong the practical risk is low.

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 and the input schema explicitly disallows additional properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource (get current recurrent payment config), which reads as a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name. It implicitly contrasts with the create/update config siblings named in the catalog by being the read variant, but nothing in the text makes that distinction explicit.

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 call this versus the create/update config siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit 'get' verb.

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