Purelymail MCP

Create app password

create_app_password

Creates an app password for a specified user and returns the credential once for immediate use; do not store or repeat it.

Instructions

Creates an app password for a user and returns it. The result is a credential: show it to the user once and do not store or repeat it.

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": {
      "userHandle": "<userHandle>"
    },
    "name": "create_app_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Optional friendly description
`userHandle`	Yes	Full username, e.g. "user@domain.com"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the baseline bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is a credential that must be surfaced to the user exactly once and never persisted or echoed. It does not mention permission requirements, whether generation can fail, or how to later revoke the credential via delete_app_password.

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 short sentences, both essential: the first defines the operation and its return, the second front-loads the security-critical handling rule. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, the definition covers the most consequential fact (credential handling). Minor gaps remain around prerequisites and post-creation lifecycle, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both userHandle and name documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable but places it at the baseline 3.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Creates an app password for a user') and notes that it returns the value, which makes the operation unambiguous next to siblings like delete_app_password. It stops short of naming any sibling or contrasting scope, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g. whether the target user must already exist). The 'show once, do not store' instruction is handling guidance rather than selection guidance, so usage is only implied.

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