Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_operating_systems_get_recipes_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the list of operating system recipes available for Aeza services, so an agent can identify OS configurations for server provisioning and management.

Instructions

Services operating systems get recipes list GET /services/operating-systems/recipes

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "services_operating_systems_get_recipes_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path—no note on result size, pagination, caching, or what a recipe record contains—so it contributes almost no behavioral value.

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?

It is two short lines with no padding, and the resource is front-loaded. The redundancy of echoing the name verbatim is minor waste but does not obscure anything.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what comes back, and it never describes the recipe objects or their fields. An agent cannot judge whether the response is what it needs before calling, leaving a real gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter misinformation is present.

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 restates the tool name and adds the HTTP route GET /services/operating-systems/recipes, which does convey a verb (get/list) and a resource (recipes under operating systems). However, it never explains what an "operating system recipe" is or how this differs from the near-identical sibling services_operating_systems_get_list, so an agent gets only a vague sense of the returned content.

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 many other *_get_list siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only contextual hint is the endpoint path itself, which the agent must interpret on its own.

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