Concrete CMS MCP Server

change-user-password

Destructive

Update a Concrete CMS user's password by supplying the user ID and new password.

Instructions

Change a user's password

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": {
      "userID": "<userID>"
    },
    "name": "change-user-password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userID`	Yes	ID of user to update
`password`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the current password must be supplied, whether it invalidates existing sessions, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required. For a destructive credential operation, that is a meaningful gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure beyond the bare statement.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, no annotation detail beyond destructive hint, and half the parameters undocumented, the definition leaves too much unspecified for a security-sensitive mutation. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing about required fields and side effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: userID is described, but the password parameter has only a 'New password' title. The description does not compensate by clarifying whether password is required, its format constraints, or whether an old/current password is also needed.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource (change a user's password), so the operation is identifiable. However, it essentially restates the tool name and title verbatim and gives no differentiation from the sibling update-user-by-id, which could plausibly do the same thing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 update-user-by-id, whether it is an admin-only reset or a self-service change, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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