Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_resources_get_resources

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves resource information for a specified service ID via the Aeza API, helping agents inspect allocated resources before managing or troubleshooting servers.

Instructions

Get service resources information GET /services/{id}/resources

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_resources_get_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the endpoint mapping and no behavioral context such as auth requirements, error cases, or what happens for a nonexistent service id.

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?

Two short lines with no filler and the resource name front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The second line is just a raw route, which partly duplicates what the name already conveys.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what "resources" returns, and it does not. For a read tool whose entire value is the payload, the definition leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning, and the path template GET /services/{id}/resources does imply that id is the service identifier. That is a genuine but minimal addition; nothing about accepted ranges or behavior for invalid ids is given.

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 names a verb ("Get") and a resource ("service resources information") and the HTTP route clarifies that it is scoped to a single service via {id}. However, "resources" is never defined (CPU/RAM/disk allocation? attached resources?), so an agent cannot tell what this actually returns versus siblings like services_get_by_id.

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 call this instead of services_get_by_id or services_get_computed_parameters, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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