Skip to main content
Glama

Send a password reset

send_password_reset
Destructive

Ask the user's source system to email them a password reset. You never see the link. Only where the source supports it.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "send_password_reset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesThe user's id in your app (preferred) or the VibeAdmin id from list_users.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: 'You never see the link' tells the agent the reset URL is not retrievable, preventing a false promise to the user, and the source-support caveat warns of a possible failure mode. It does not say what an unsupported-source response looks like or whether repeated calls are rate-limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key limitation about the link, then the availability caveat. No wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter action with annotations covering its destructive profile and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the two non-obvious facts an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the source does not support resets, which is minor.

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 100% and the single user_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the preference for the app id over the VibeAdmin id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it asks the user's source system to email a password reset. That is clearly distinct from siblings like send_email or create_email_draft, since the action is delegated to the source system rather than composed here. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Only where the source supports it' is a real precondition and implies the tool should not be used for every user. However, it gives no guidance on what to do instead when the source does not support it, and no explicit contrast with send_email for a custom message.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.