Change a MySQL user password on a 1Panel server by specifying the database, user ID, and new credential. Use it to rotate or reset database credentials securely via MCP.
MySQL: Change user password
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| database | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether existing connections are dropped, whether the operation is reversible, whether admin privileges are needed, or what a failure looks like for a mutation that can lock a user out.
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 single line is front-loaded and free of bloat, which fits the rubric's neutrality for brevity. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a minimum-viable score.
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?
A destructive, high-stakes mutation with five undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description supplies none of the context needed to invoke it safely, making it wholly inadequate for this complexity.
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?
Five required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about any of them. Cryptic names like "from", "type", "value", and "id" are left completely unexplained, so the agent cannot know what values are expected.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Change user password" scoped to MySQL), so the action is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like mysql_change_access, postgresql_change_password, or redis_change_password, leaving the agent to infer the target from the tool name alone.
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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (does the MySQL user have to exist? is this for the DB service account?), and no mention of required permissions. The agent must guess entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.