Change a user's email address via the BeezUP Merchant API. Submit a request body with the new email.
Change user email
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ChangeEmail"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, irreversibility, email verification effects, or side effects. It provides none, leaving critical behavioral aspects completely unspecified.
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?
At three words, the description is minimal but not appropriately sized. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the sentence is too short to convey useful information. True conciseness would include necessary details without verbosity, which is lacking here.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to structure the request, what the return value is, or any constraints, making the tool nearly unusable.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'body' described only as 'Request body'. Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it could have specified required fields (e.g., newEmail) but did not.
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 'Change user email' clearly identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that change other entities (e.g., ChangePassword, ChangeOrder). However, it does not specify which user's email is being changed (current user or any user) or any qualifications.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description fails to indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like SavePersonalInfo, nor does it mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.