Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_ssh_keys_create

Destructive

Creates an SSH key in Aeza for server access by submitting a name, OpenSSH public key, and auto-assign preference.

Instructions

Create SSH key POST /services/ssh-keys

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_ssh_keys_create"
  }
}

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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: it doesn't say what a non-idempotent create does on a repeated call, whether the key is immediately active, or what permissions are required.

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, front-loaded and free of waste, but the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency. The endpoint path adds little value an agent can act on.

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 mutating, non-idempotent, destructive-flagged tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the definition leaves the caller without the information needed to invoke it correctly. It should at minimum explain the body fields and the create semantics.

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% and the single parameter is a nested body object with three required fields. The description does not explain any of them, and 'autoAssign' in particular is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess its effect.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create SSH key') plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent services_ssh_keys_edit / _get / _get_list siblings, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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 versus services_ssh_keys_edit or the other key-management tools, no prerequisites (e.g. service must exist), and no note on duplicate-key behavior. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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