cPanel MCP Server

create_email_account

Create a new cPanel email account by specifying the email address, password, and optional mailbox quota in megabytes.

Instructions

Create a new email account

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "create_email_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email address (user@domain.com)
`quota`	No	Mailbox quota in MB (0 for unlimited)	1024
`password`	Yes	Password for the email account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely paraphrases the tool name, offering no insight into side effects (e.g., creating a mailbox), permissions required, or potential error conditions. This is essentially a tautology.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it adds no value beyond the tool name and lacks any structured detail. It is not overly verbose, but it also does not earn its place by conveying new information.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient context about required inputs, side effects, or expected outcomes. It is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% (email, password, quota all explained). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents each parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 "Create a new email account" clearly states the verb (create) and resource (email account), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_email_forwarder or change_email_password. While terse, it unambiguously conveys the tool's primary function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like domain existence or related operations. The description provides no contextual or exclusionary information.

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

Deploy Server