create_admin_users_password_reset_tokenGenerate a password reset token for an admin user using their email, enabling secure password recovery and authenticated reset flows.
Generates a reset token and returns it. This is an authenticated endpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that a token is generated and returned and that authentication is required, but it does not explain side effects, token expiry, whether a previous token is invalidated, or whether the token is emailed to the user.
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?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that each carry useful information: the core action/result and the authentication requirement. There is no unnecessary wording.
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?
The tool has no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a minimal description. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details needed for an agent to call this reliably and understand side effects.
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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The 'email' parameter is only inferable from the tool name, and 'accept-language' is entirely unexplained. The description adds no semantic value for the parameters.
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 clear action and resource: it generates a reset token and returns it. It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like create_users_forgot_password or create_users_reset_password.
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?
The only usage guidance is 'This is an authenticated endpoint,' which indicates a prerequisite but does not explain when to use this tool versus the many related auth/password tools. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.