Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

support_archive

Destructive

Marks a support ticket as solved by archiving it through the Aeza API, so resolved requests can be closed.

Instructions

Mark ticket as solved POST /support/tickets/{id}/archive

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>"
    },
    "name": "support_archive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 that: it does not say what state the ticket ends in, whether the action is reversible, whether notifications fire, or what error conditions exist for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two short lines with the outcome stated first and the endpoint second; nothing is padded. It borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, so length is not a defect here.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation on a support ticket, the definition says nothing about side effects, reversibility, or the resulting ticket state. With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin to let an agent call this confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage). The path template "/support/tickets/{id}/archive" implies that `id` is a ticket identifier, which is real added meaning, but the description never confirms the type, format, or whether it accepts external ticket IDs.

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?

"Mark ticket as solved" states a specific verb (mark) and resource (ticket) with an end state, which is far clearer than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish the 'solved' outcome from archiving as named in the tool, nor differentiate from siblings like support_read or support_get_one.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. ticket must be open, must be assigned), and no statement of when not to use it. The agent must infer everything from the endpoint path.

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