Purelymail MCP

Add domain

add_domain

Registers a domain after DNS checks pass; use an ownership code to verify control before configuring mail routing.

Instructions

Adds a domain, provided it passes DNS checks. See get_ownership_code.

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": {
      "domainName": "<domainName>"
    },
    "name": "add_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domainName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world mutation that is not destructive. The description adds real value with the DNS verification precondition, which flags that the call can fail on external state, but it omits what happens on failure, whether verification is synchronous, and whether an ownership code must exist first.

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 sentences with the core action and its precondition front-loaded; there is no filler. The trailing cross-reference is terse to the point of being cryptic about why get_ownership_code matters.

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 an open-world mutation with no output schema, the description should say what a successful add returns, whether the domain enters a pending-verification state, and how ownership codes relate to the DNS check. Only the precondition is disclosed, so an agent still cannot predict the call's outcome.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the schema supplies only the name domainName and a minLength. The description does not clarify accepted formats (apex vs subdomain, punycode, trailing dots), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Adds a domain" states a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "provided it passes DNS checks" narrows the operation beyond a plain create. It does not explicitly contrast with update_domain_settings or list_domains, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The DNS-check precondition and the pointer to get_ownership_code imply a prerequisite flow before calling this tool. However, it never states when to use this versus update_domain_settings, nor what to do if the DNS check fails, leaving the procedural guidance incomplete.

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