obambu-cpanel-mcp

create_email

Create an email account for a cPanel domain using local part, password, and optional quota. Provisions a new mailbox on the hosting server.

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>",
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "create_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Local part of the address, e.g. 'contact' for contact@example.com
`domain`	Yes	Domain for the mailbox, e.g. example.com
`quotaMb`	No	Mailbox quota in MB, 0 for unlimited
`password`	Yes	Password for the new mailbox

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Create a new email account' and gives no information about side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the domain must already exist. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain return values, idempotency, or prerequisites such as domain existence. While the schema covers parameters, a create operation needs more contextual detail to be fully usable by an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('email account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_email and create_database_user. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools suggest related operations, but the description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server