Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_prolong_many

Destructive

Prolong multiple services in one bulk request by providing each service ID, payment term, period count, and the payment method to use.

Instructions

Prolong multiple services POST /services/prolong/bulk

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "services_prolong_many"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context for a bulk destructive mutation: it does not explain effects on existing services, payment implications, failure behavior, or irreversibility.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 bulk operation with nested required fields and no output schema, the definition is too sparse. An agent knows the endpoint and the annotations' safety profile but lacks enough description to invoke it confidently.

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?

The top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. Nested schema fields do describe count, serviceId, paymentTerm, and method, but the description itself does not compensate for the missing top-level body semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Prolong multiple services', and the 'multiple' wording distinguishes it from the singular sibling services_prolong. It is still terse and does not explain what prolongation entails, but the core action is identifiable.

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 bulk operation versus services_prolong or other service-management siblings. The only additional context is the endpoint path, which does not help an agent choose or avoid this tool.

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