Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

withdraws_get_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of withdraws from the Aeza API. Use limit and offset to control how many records are returned and where the list begins.

Instructions

Get withdraws GET /withdraws

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "withdraws_get_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of auth requirements, whether results are paginated, what the default ordering or time window is, or what an empty result means.

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?

It is only two fragments and front-loaded, so nothing is padded. However, the second fragment ("GET /withdraws") is redundant with the name and consumes half the available description budget without adding information.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum sketch what a withdraw record contains and how pagination behaves. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to anticipate return shape or page through results confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions limit or offset, let alone their meaning, maximum values, or pagination/total-count behavior. With two undocumented parameters, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 withdraws" plus the endpoint GET /withdraws identifies a retrieval of withdraw records, but it is close to a restatement of the name withdraws_get_list. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as withdraws_get_limits or withdraws_get_methods, and no scope (account-wide? date-bounded?) is stated.

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 indication of prerequisites (e.g., whether withdraws_init must run first or auth is required), and no signposting toward the related limits/methods tools. The agent must infer everything 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