Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

support_rates_get_cloud_tips

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves CloudTips recipient details for a specific support ticket by its ID, providing the payout targets needed to process a ticket rating tip.

Instructions

Get CloudTips recipients for a ticket GET /support/tickets/{id}/rate/tips/cloudtips

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_cloud_tips"
  }
}

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only the raw HTTP endpoint, which restates that this is a GET with no added behavioral context such as auth requirements, error cases, or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The raw endpoint line is borderline noise for an agent but is compact and does not obscure the intent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what a 'CloudTips recipient' record contains, and it does not. It is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly but leaves the return shape and the id semantics to inference.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, but the path template '/support/tickets/{id}/...' implies the id is a ticket identifier. That is a modest clarification beyond the bare 'number' schema, though the description never explicitly states it.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CloudTips recipients for a ticket'), which separates it from the generic sibling support_rates_get_tips. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though 'CloudTips recipients' is a domain term the agent must already understand.

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 support_rates_get_tips or support_rates_get_tips. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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