Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

accounts_change_password

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the password for the authenticated Aeza account by providing a new password of 8–32 characters.

Instructions

Change password PUT /accounts/me/password

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "accounts_change_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path and says nothing about session invalidation, whether the old password must be supplied, or failure behavior — minimal added value beyond structured data.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short lines, action first, endpoint second — front-loaded with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification rather than being well-sized for a destructive mutation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description omits what an agent most needs: auth context, whether the current password is required, and any confirmation or rollback considerations. Annotations carry the safety hints but the description does not fill the remaining gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no parameter information whatsoever, despite the body being a nested object. An agent gets the length bounds from the schema but no semantic guidance on the password field beyond its leaf description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Change password") and adds the endpoint "PUT /accounts/me/password", which scopes it to the caller's own account. That makes the action unambiguous, though it offers nothing to separate it from the sibling services_change_password beyond the URL path, which the description never contrasts.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. knowing the current password), and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The agent must infer everything about applicability from the name alone.

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