aeza-mcp

services_prolong

Destructive

Extend a service by submitting a payment method, payment term, and period count to the Aeza API prolongation endpoint.

Instructions

Prolong service POST /services/{id}/prolong

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "services_prolong"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`body`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP route: it does not say what gets changed (expiry date, billing term), whether the payment is charged immediately, or whether the operation is reversible. For a destructive mutation that triggers payment, that is a meaningful gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline: one title-like phrase plus a raw REST route. Nothing is front-loaded about preconditions, effects, or cost, so the few words that exist do not earn their place as agent guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive, open-world mutation with a nested body, 0% top-level schema coverage, and no output schema. The description supplies none of the missing context an agent needs: what prolongation does, what the payment method values are, or what is returned on success.

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 reported at 0%, and the description does not define the top-level `id` (assumed service id) at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's nested body fields, which already document count, method, and paymentTerm themselves.

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?

"Prolong service" names a verb and resource, and the POST path confirms it is a mutation on a specific service id. But it never explains what prolonging means (extending the service's paid term/expiry), and it does not distinguish it from the sibling services_prolong_many, which the agent must choose between.

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 (payment method requirements, eligibility of the service), and no mention of the bulk alternative services_prolong_many. The agent is left to infer the calling context entirely.

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

Deploy Server