Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_networks_make_main

Destructive

Set a specified IPv4 network as the main network for a service by providing its service ID and external network ID.

Instructions

Make netork as main POST /services/{serviceId}/networks/ipv4/{externalId}/make-main

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>",
      "externalId": "<externalId>"
    },
    "name": "services_networks_make_main"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceIdYes
externalIdYes

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, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says what happens to the previously main network, whether the change is reversible, or what side effects (rDNS, routing) occur — notable gaps 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?

It is short and front-loads the action, but the second line is a raw HTTP route rather than useful prose, and the typo in "netork" is a quality defect.

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 two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what state change results, what the response contains, or how to recover if the wrong network is made main.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. The endpoint path template does map serviceId and externalId to their positions, which is marginal help, but neither is explained (what kind of externalId — IPv4 address or record 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 gives a verb and resource ("Make network as main" for an IPv4 network), so the general intent is inferable, but "main" is never defined (primary/default IPv4 address?) and the typo "netork" reduces polish. It also does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like services_networks_change_ipv4 or services_networks_buy_ipv4.

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 such as change_ipv4. The agent must infer that this sets the service's primary IPv4 from the name alone.

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