Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

service_backups_create

Destructive

Creates a named backup for a specific service using its service ID, enabling recovery and restore points.

Instructions

Create backup POST /services/{serviceId}/backups

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": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "service_backups_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
serviceIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on costs, quotas, side effects on existing backups, or whether the operation is reversible, which matters for a flagged-destructive creation call.

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 two short lines with no wasted prose, and the action is front-loaded. However, the second line is a bare HTTP route rather than useful guidance, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with a nested required body, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description does not fill any of those gaps, leaving the agent to rely entirely on annotations and schema structure.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither parameter. The nested body object requiring only a "name" is not described at all, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the raw JSON structure.

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 gives a verb+resource ("Create backup") plus the raw endpoint path, so the basic action is understandable. It does not distinguish this from sibling backup tools such as service_backups_enable_backups or service_backups_set_schedule, and the endpoint path is not user-facing language.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many backup-related siblings. The only implicit signal is that a serviceId is required, which the schema already states.

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