change_my_emailChange the authenticated user's email address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_address | Yes | New email address |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation that the change was started — the new address has to be verified before it becomes the sign-in email. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Confirmation that the change was started — the new address has to be verified before it becomes the sign-in email."
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Change' is consistent but not additive. It does add the important scoping context that this affects the authenticated user's own account, yet it does not disclose possible side effects such as email verification requirements or impacts on login sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter mutation with a complete input schema and an output schema present, so the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks only a bit of side-effect or verification context, which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with email_address fully described by name, type, format, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Change'), a clear resource ('email address'), and the exact scope ('authenticated user's'). This distinguishes it from update_user and get_current_user, which are the relevant sibling alternatives in the tool list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'authenticated user's' clearly indicates this tool is for changing the caller's own email address, which implies it should not be used to change another user's email. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative like update_user or state a when-not-to-use condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.