Purelymail MCP

Delete app password

delete_app_password

Destructive

Deletes an existing Purelymail app password by requiring the username and full app password value, since the API cannot list app passwords.

Instructions

Deletes an app password. Requires the full password value; the API has no way to list them.

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": {
      "userName": "<userName>",
      "appPassword": "<appPassword>"
    },
    "name": "delete_app_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userName`	Yes	Full username, e.g. "user@domain.com"
`appPassword`	Yes	Full app password

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds non-obvious operational context beyond that: app passwords are unenumerable via the API, so this deletion is effectively irreversible with no way to recover or verify the value afterward. It does not mention auth scope or whether the deletion cascades to active sessions.

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, action first, constraint second. Every clause carries load and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

A two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations that already flag the mutation. The one thing an agent could not infer, that app passwords cannot be listed, is stated. Only auth/permission requirements and post-deletion effects are left uncovered.

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% and both required parameters carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that appPassword must be the full value, but adds no format, encoding, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Deletes an app password"), immediately distinguishable from the sibling create_app_password. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the inverse operation, but the scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States a real precondition that shapes usage: the caller must already possess the full password value because the API cannot list app passwords. That tells the agent to source the value elsewhere before calling. It stops short of naming an alternative retrieval path or a discovery tool, so it is not a full 5.

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