Request a password reset email for an account; returns success regardless of account existence to prevent enumeration, and the reset link expires after 1 hour.
Request a password reset email. Always returns success to prevent user enumeration — the email is only sent if the account exists. The reset link is valid for 1 hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address associated with the account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it always returns success to prevent user enumeration, the email is only sent if the account exists, and the reset link is valid for 1 hour. These are exactly the non-obvious operational traits an agent needs. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with this description.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the critical behavioral caveat about the always-success response and token validity. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior completely: what it does, why the response is always success, when the email is actually sent, and how long the link is valid. Nothing material is missing.
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?
Only one parameter (email) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: request a password reset email. It is distinguishable from the sibling auth_reset_password by implication (requesting the email vs performing the reset), but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.
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?
The purpose implies the usage context (a user forgot their password), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural follow-up tool auth_reset_password, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.