Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

support_rates_get_tips

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve rating tips for a support ticket using its ID to guide support feedback and ticket rating decisions.

Instructions

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

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_tips"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description restates the endpoint path and adds nothing beyond structured data — no note on what a "tip" is, whether it requires the ticket to be closed/rated, or error behavior for unrated tickets.

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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Its brevity is efficient even though the content is thin.

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 with annotations and no output schema, the description still fails to convey what is returned (a tip amount? a list of suggested gratuities?) or when the call is valid. The domain term is never resolved, leaving the agent guessing at the result.

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% with a single required "id" parameter that the schema leaves completely undocumented (only typed as number). The description's path template '{id}' implicitly ties it to the ticket, which is a small but real addition over the bare schema, though it never states the unit or format.

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?

"Get ticket tips" names a verb and resource, and the endpoint path clarifies it's a per-ticket read. But "tips" is undefined domain jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from sibling support_rates_get_cloud_tips or support_rates_tip — an agent cannot tell which rate-related read it needs.

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 preconditions, and no reference to alternatives among the many sibling rate/support tools. The agent must infer the tool's role 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