aeza-mcp

services_send_serviceless_command

Destructive

Send a command to a service through the Aeza API using the command, pm, and body parameters to trigger service operations remotely.

Instructions

Send command to service pm POST /services/command/{command}

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": {
      "command": "<command>",
      "pm": "<pm>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "services_send_serviceless_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pm`	Yes
`body`	Yes
`command`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds nothing about blast radius, permissions, or what an executed command does to the target service, which is the critical missing context for a destructive remote command.

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, but the two fragments are poorly formed: "service pm" is ambiguous and the route template is dropped in without context. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from eliminating waste.

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 command-execution tool with three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, an unconstrained body payload, and no output schema needs substantial description. The provided text covers none of that, leaving an agent unable to call it safely or correctly.

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% across three required parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at two of them: "command" via the URL template and "pm" as the target. The untyped free-form "body" parameter is completely unexplained, so an agent must guess its expected structure.

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?

"Send command to service pm" names a verb and a resource, but "pm" is left undefined and reads as a garbled placeholder rather than a service identifier. The trailing HTTP route is the only concrete detail, and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling services_send_command.

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 instead of services_send_command or the other service tools. The word "serviceless" in the name is never explained in the description, so the one cue that might separate it from its sibling is absent.

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

Deploy Server