Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_migrate

Destructive

Migrate a service from a legacy product to a new product through the Aeza API. Use this operation to transition existing services to updated product plans.

Instructions

Migrate service to new product from legacy product POST /services/{id}/migrate

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_migrate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no warning about irreversibility, no note on side effects to the service or its pricing, and no mention of required confirmations or permissions.

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. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint line arguably substitutes cheaply for real explanation.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, so the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it. An agent still lacks the destination-product input semantics, expected outcome, and failure/rollback behavior.

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?

There is one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage; the description only surfaces it indirectly through the 'POST /services/{id}/migrate' path notation. It adds no meaning such as whether id is the service to migrate or the target product, so an agent must guess how to identify the destination product.

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 ('Migrate') and resource ('service'), plus the direction of the move ('to new product from legacy product'), which is more than a name restatement. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling services_change_product, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 services_change_product, no prerequisites (e.g., legacy product status, plan eligibility), and no indication of when it should not be used. The only usage signal is the implied legacy->new product direction.

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