Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

services_suspend

Destructive

Suspends a running service via the Aeza API, optionally forcing suspension to stop it immediately. Use it to halt a service for maintenance, billing holds, or security response.

Instructions

Suspend service POST /services/{id}/ctl/suspend

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "services_suspend"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
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, establishing the risk profile. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP call: it does not say what suspending does to the running service, whether data/state is preserved, whether it is reversible, or what the force flag changes.

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 description is two short lines with the action front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint line is largely redundant with the tool name, which slightly limits its value.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested optional flag, zero documented parameters, and no output schema. Given that complexity, the description is far too thin — it explains neither the effect of suspension nor the force semantics.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only embeds "{id}" in the path, giving no meaning for the id or for the nested body.force object. For a two-parameter tool with a nested boolean, this leaves the agent guessing what force actually controls.

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?

"Suspend service" states a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell what the tool does at a glance. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as services_leave_rescue_mode or services_edit, and no scope detail, which keeps it below a 5.

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 suspend versus alternatives like services_edit, services_goto, or services_enter_rescue_mode, and no stated prerequisites. The only hint is the endpoint path, which implies nothing about selection.

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