Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_static_links_call_static_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches static service information by key from the Aeza API, enabling lookup of static-link data for a specific service.

Instructions

Get service static info by key GET /services/static-links

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "services_static_links_call_static_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it does not say what error occurs for an unknown key, whether results are cached, or what the payload contains.

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 and front-loaded, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The appended raw HTTP path adds little for an agent choosing among tools.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum define the key and describe the returned static info; it does neither. Overall it is too thin to let an agent invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is a bare "key". The description says "by key" without clarifying whether that is a service ID, a link identifier, or a slug, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description "Get service static info by key" is close to a restatement of the tool name and adds little specificity: "static info" is undefined, and it is unclear whether it returns a link record, a URL, or service metadata. No sibling is named or contrasted, so an agent cannot distinguish it from services_get_by_id or files_create_link on the basis of this text.

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 precondition, and no mention of alternatives despite many sibling services_* getters. The only orientation is the raw endpoint path, which does not tell an agent which situation selects 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