Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

referral_programs_get_tiers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the available referral program tiers, listing each tier's requirements and rewards so you can present or compare program levels.

Instructions

Get referral tiers GET /referral-programs/tiers

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": "referral_programs_get_tiers"
  }
}

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 this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, which covers the safety profile. The description contributes nothing beyond restating the endpoint, so it neither confirms nor enriches the annotated behavior, and says nothing about what the response contains.

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?

Two short lines with nothing superfluous, and the verb+resource leads. But the second line simply restates the operation as a URL path, which adds a routing detail rather than useful information, making the whole thing minimal without being informative.

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 with full annotations, the main remaining question is what the returned tiers look like, and there is no output schema to carry that. One sentence on the return shape (tiers per program, fields included) would make this complete.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies, with no evidence to penalize it.

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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("referral tiers") plus the underlying endpoint path, so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling read tools like referral_programs_get_top or referral_programs_get_history, and "tiers" is never defined (tiers of what, scoped to which program?).

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 mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool. The '<n>GET /referral-programs/tiers' line is a routing detail rather than a usage rule, so an agent must guess when this tool is the right choice.

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