aeza-mcp

services_get_price

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the price breakdown for a service by its ID, helping you review cost components and billing details.

Instructions

Get service price breakdown GET /services/{id}/price

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_get_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 without the description. The description adds only the raw endpoint path, with no mention of auth requirements, error behavior for unknown service IDs, or what a 'breakdown' consists of.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the endpoint mapping; nothing is redundant. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness leaves content gaps that are scored under other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what a 'price breakdown' returns (components, currency, period), and it says nothing. For a low-complexity single-parameter read this is a modest but real gap that leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the schema only says id is a number with no meaning attached. The {id} placeholder in the endpoint path does establish that the parameter is the service identifier used in the path rather than a query filter, which is real added meaning, but nothing is said about valid ranges or how to obtain the ID.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get the price breakdown for a single service, with the underlying endpoint GET /services/{id}/price confirming the scope is one service, not a list. It does not distinguish itself from price-related siblings such as services_get_prices or services_get_computed_parameters, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the several sibling price tools, no prerequisites, and no conditions for exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and endpoint path.

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

Deploy Server