Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Reset a user’s password

reset_user_password
DestructiveIdempotent

Reset a Wiki.js local user's password by emailing them a reset link. Provide a user ID and confirmation token to initiate the process.

Instructions

Starts Wiki.js’ own password reset for a local account, which emails the user a link. No password is chosen or returned here. Requires a confirmation token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesNumeric Wiki.js id.
confirm_tokenNoToken from this tool’s previous, unconfirmed call. Omit it to receive one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_id / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey read/write and destructive behavior. The description adds useful side effects ('emails the user a link') and a non-obvious exclusion ('No password is chosen or returned'). However, the phrase 'Requires a confirmation token' is underspecified and could confuse agents, since the schema marks confirm_token as optional.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short, front-loaded sentences convey action, scope, and key exclusions without padding. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is that the confirmation-token flow is not explicitly described as 'call once without it, then again with it,' which would eliminate ambiguity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though the 'no password' clause helps clarify the absence of a password parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Starts Wiki.js’ own password reset'), scopes it to local accounts, and explains what it does not do ('No password is chosen or returned here'). This clearly distinguishes it from direct credential-modification tools like update_user.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context: local account, email-based reset. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it explain the two-step confirmation workflow. The mention of a confirmation token is present but vague.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools