Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Mark a user as verified

verify_user
Idempotent

Verify a user's email address by confirming the token received from an unconfirmed verification call, completing the account activation process.

Instructions

Marks an account’s email as verified, which is otherwise done by the user clicking a link. 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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations providing idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the verification is normally user-driven and this tool is the manual alternative, and a confirmation token is involved. This gives the agent insight into the two-step-like nature of the operation, although the full token-omission flow is only fully described in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the core action front-loaded ('Marks an account’s email as verified') and the relevant context and requirement following. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

Given the schema fully documents both parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly sufficient. It conveys the tool's intent and the token requirement, which are the main non-obvious aspects. A minor gap is that the description alone could imply a token is always required, whereas the schema clarifies that it can be omitted to receive one, so the description relies on the schema for that nuance.

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%, with both user_id and confirm_token clearly described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics; it merely mentions 'a confirmation token' generically. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Marks an account’s email as verified', which clearly states the tool's action. The clarifying clause 'which is otherwise done by the user clicking a link' adds context that distinguishes this from the normal end-user flow, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling admin tools. Thus, clear purpose but not full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an account's email needs verification outside the usual user-clicked-link flow. It also specifies a prerequisite ('Requires a confirmation token'), guiding the agent on what is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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