aeza-mcp

services_connect_remote_vnc

Destructive

Creates a VNC connection for a service by ID, letting an AI agent open remote console access to a server through the Aeza API.

Instructions

Create vnc connection POST /services/{id}/remote/vnc

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": "services_connect_remote_vnc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint: it doesn't say whether an existing VNC session is replaced or destroyed, whether credentials or a connection URL are returned, or whether the operation is billable or time-limited. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, that is a real gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines with the verb-resource statement front-loaded and no filler. The raw HTTP path is compact and does carry the id semantics, so it is not wasted, though it is not the most useful thing to surface.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter requires more explanation than this. Missing are what state changes occur, what the caller receives back, and any side effects on existing connections.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter (id) has 0% schema description coverage, but the path template POST /services/{id}/remote/vnc clarifies that id is the service identifier. That is genuine added meaning, though nothing is said about valid ranges or what happens with an invalid or non-VNC-capable service id.

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 states a verb and resource ("Create vnc connection") and exposes the underlying endpoint, so the operation is identifiable. However, it largely restates the tool name (services_connect_remote_vnc) and gives no indication of what a VNC connection actually entails for the service, leaving purpose only minimally specified.

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 (e.g. service must be running or have VNC enabled), and no mention of alternatives or conditions under which this should be avoided. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server