aeza-mcp

support_rates_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the rating details for a specific support ticket by its ID via GET /support/tickets/{id}/rate.

Instructions

Get ticket rate info GET /support/tickets/{id}/rate

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_rates_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the GET path — no note on auth requirements, error behavior for unrated tickets, or what the returned rate object 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?

Two lines, no wasted words, and the operation is front-loaded. However, the brevity is partly under-specification: the endpoint line restates implementation detail while omitting what the call actually returns.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it says only 'rate info' — an agent cannot tell what fields or semantics to expect. For a read tool with no output contract, the definition is materially incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the path template 'GET /support/tickets/{id}/rate' does add real meaning by revealing that id is a ticket identifier rather than, say, a rate or user id. Beyond that mapping there is no format, type, or validity detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb 'Get' plus 'ticket rate info' identifies an operation, but 'rate info' is ambiguous — it could be a satisfaction rating or a monetary/billing rate — and the presence of siblings like support_rates_rate and support_rates_tip makes the ambiguity consequential. The HTTP path clarifies it targets a rate subresource of a specific ticket, but the description never states what a 'rate' is here.

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 call this versus support_rates_rate, support_rates_tip, or support_rates_get_tips. The description gives no context about preconditions (e.g., ticket must exist or be rated) and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection from names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server