Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mx-route-mcp

mx-route-mcp

by MauiGrowth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update reseller user

update_reseller_user
DestructiveIdempotent

Change a reseller user's disk quota or password; omitted fields stay unchanged. Confirm first because a new password locks out anyone using the old one.

Instructions

Changes a user's disk quota and/or password. Provide at least one; omitted fields stay unchanged. Changing the password locks out anyone using the old one. Reseller accounts only (regular accounts are refused, typically with 403) and not available while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in reseller|user form. Destructive: confirm with the user before calling.

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "update_reseller_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quotaNoDisk quota in MB, or the string 'unlimited'
passwordNoNew password, at least 8 characters
usernameYesUsername of the reseller's user account, e.g. johndoe

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it warns that a password change locks out holders of the old password, states the reseller-only authorization requirement and its typical 403 error, notes an environment-dependent unavailability, and advises confirming the destructive action with the user — matching destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with preconditions, side effects, and the destructive warning following in tight, waste-free sentences. No repetition of schema or annotation content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers partial-update rules, authorization scope, side effects, and confirmation policy — everything needed to call it safely.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so field formats are already documented; the description nonetheless adds the crucial at-least-one-of-quota/password constraint and the partial-update semantics ('omitted fields stay unchanged'), which the schema's lone required field cannot express.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Changes') plus the exact mutable fields ('disk quota and/or password') on a named resource ('a user', scoped to reseller users). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like change_reseller_user_package or update_email_account without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('Provide at least one; omitted fields stay unchanged'), an account-type restriction with the expected failure mode (403), and a configuration exclusion. It does not name an explicit alternative tool for related operations (e.g. package changes), so routing between siblings is inferred rather than stated.

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