Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_regenerate_token

Rotate the MODX MCP API token to a fresh random value. Update MODX_MCP_TOKEN in your client config immediately; the previous token becomes invalid and further calls are unauthorized.

Instructions

Rotate the modxmcp.api_token to a fresh random value and return it. NOTE: this invalidates the current token — update MODX_MCP_TOKEN in your client config immediately, or the next call will be unauthorized.

Tool call template

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": "modx_regenerate_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it names the mutation, states that the current token is invalidated, and spells out the immediate post-condition (update MODX_MCP_TOKEN or the next call fails with unauthorized). This is exactly the destructive side-effect information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the action first and the hazardous consequence front-loaded in the NOTE. Nothing extraneous and nothing omitted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and the critical follow-up action. It also implicitly conveys failure behavior (unauthorized) after rotation, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no input beyond being authorized.

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?

States a concrete verb (rotate) plus the exact resource (modxmcp.api_token) and the result ('return it'). No sibling tool touches credentials, so an agent can immediately place this as the credential-rotation operation.

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 warning implicitly frames when this should be run deliberately — as a credential rotation whose side effect must be handled at once — and there is no plausible alternative tool to route to. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' trigger, so it falls short of a 5.

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