Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

service_backups_disable_backups

Destructive

Disable backups for a specific service by providing its service ID, stopping backup protection through the Aeza API.

Instructions

Disable backups POST /services/{serviceId}/backups/disable

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>"
    },
    "name": "service_backups_disable_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the route — it does not say whether existing backup data is deleted, whether billing for backups stops, or whether the action is reversible, which are the key unknowns for a destructive mutation.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint, with zero filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so length is fine but content is thin.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves out consequences, prerequisites, and the meaning of serviceId. An agent could invoke it but cannot predict its effects.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only echoes '{serviceId}' from the URL template without clarifying that it identifies the service whose backups are disabled or whether it accepts a UUID versus numeric ID. It does not compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource pairing ('Disable backups') plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent can tell this is the write counterpart to service_backups_enable_backups. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus enable_backups or set_schedule, no prerequisites (e.g., whether backups must be enabled first), and no note on whether the service must be in a particular state. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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