Change an existing cPanel MySQL username by specifying the current full username and new suffix, so database accounts can be updated without recreating the user.
Rename an existing MySQL user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_user | Yes | New username (suffix without prefix) | |
| old_user | Yes | Current full username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. The word 'existing' hints that the target user must be present, but nothing is said about whether privileges survive the rename, whether active connections are affected, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required for a mutation of this kind.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
For a destructive-ish mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain effects and requirements. Beyond naming the action, it leaves the agent without the information needed to invoke this safely or predict its outcome.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both properties documented, including the notable detail that new_user is a suffix without prefix while old_user is the full username. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (rename) and resource (MySQL user), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like create_mysql_user, delete_mysql_user, and set_mysql_user_password. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings explicitly, so it lands just below the top mark.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus creating a new user and dropping the old one, no mention of prerequisites such as the user already existing or required privileges, and no note on what happens to grants. The agent must infer everything about context of use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.