Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_ssh_keys_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a specific SSH key by ID, returning its details for server access and key management tasks.

Instructions

Get SSH key by id GET /services/ssh-keys/{sshKeyId}

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": {
      "sshKeyId": "<sshKeyId>"
    },
    "name": "services_ssh_keys_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sshKeyIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating that this is a GET, omitting auth requirements and what happens when the id does not exist (e.g., 404). With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence with no padding. The trailing raw endpoint line is redundant with the prose but harmless.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-resource read this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what fields a returned SSH key contains, and the missing-key behavior is unstated. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single sshKeyId parameter is documented only as a number. The description adds only "by id", without clarifying whether this is the key's internal id versus a fingerprint or label, so it barely compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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?

"Get SSH key by id" states a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path confirms it retrieves a single key rather than a list. An agent can distinguish it from services_ssh_keys_get_list by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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, and no mention of alternatives such as get_list for enumeration. The only implicit signal is "by id", which the agent must infer selects the single-key variant.

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