plaid-devx-mcp

Force ITEM_LOGIN_REQUIRED (sandbox only)

plaid_sandbox_reset_login

Simulate a bank password change by resetting a sandbox Item's login, putting it into an error state to test update-mode Link flow.

Instructions

Calls /sandbox/item/reset_login to put the Item into the error state a real user hits when their bank password changes. Use it to test your update-mode Link flow.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "plaid_sandbox_reset_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	item_id from plaid_sandbox_item_create (or a raw access_token you already hold)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool calls a mutation endpoint, forces an error state, and simulates a credential-change scenario. It stops short of documenting side effects such as whether the access token is invalidated or how the error state is cleared, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences accomplish the task: the first tells what happens technically, the second tells why an agent would call it. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 sandbox utility with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: endpoint, effect, sandbox constraint, and intended flow. It could add what a successful response looks like, but this is a minor gap for a test-only tool.

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?

The body adds no parameter guidance, but the input schema already covers item_id 100%, including the source of the id (plaid_sandbox_item_create or raw access_token). With full schema coverage, the description need not repeat this, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact endpoint and the specific effect: putting the Item into the ITEM_LOGIN_REQUIRED error state that follows a bank-password change. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as plaid_sandbox_fire_webhook and plaid_item_remove.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states the intended use case: testing the update-mode Link flow. The title adds the sandbox-only constraint, but the description does not spell out exclusions or direct an agent to an alternative when update-mode testing is not the goal.

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