Send a password reset link to your billing account email. Use when you need to recover or change your billing password; the email must match the account on file.
Reset the billing account password (whmcs/reset_password): a reset link is sent to the given email. Email must match the account email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Account email | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Input schema / properties / email / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email аккаунта"New value: +"Account email"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the operation does not change the password directly but sends a reset link to the email, and the email must match the account. It stops short of covering auth requirements or rate limits.
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 pairing the action, the underlying endpoint, and the key constraint. No filler; the parenthetical endpoint reference is the only slightly extraneous element.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what's missing: the email-link mechanism and the email-match constraint. The undocumented confirm/required-flag detail is already carried by the schema, so completeness is adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds one constraint beyond the schema (email must match the account email), but never mentions the required 'confirm' flag, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.
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 ('Reset the billing account password') and even names the underlying call (whmcs/reset_password). There is no closely related sibling to distinguish from, so it does not need explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
It gives one precondition ('Email must match the account email'), which implies the correct invocation context, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any other eligibility conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.