Purelymail MCP

Delete domain

delete_domain

Destructive

Permanently removes a domain along with all dependent settings and users. Use it to clean up a domain after confirming exactly what data will be lost.

Instructions

Permanently deletes a domain AND all of its dependent settings and users. Confirm with the user first, listing what will be lost.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Domain name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so irreversibility is partly carried by structured data. The description still adds real value by disclosing the cascading effect on dependent settings and users, which no annotation expresses. However, it does not say whether verification/ownership permission is required, whether the name must exist first, or what happens on partial cascade failure.

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, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the confirmation instruction. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs: permanence, cascade scope, and a mandatory confirmation step. It could be stronger by noting permission requirements or whether deletion is recoverable, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or casing guidance for the domain name beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a domain') plus the cascade scope ('AND all of its dependent settings and users'), which makes the blast radius unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby delete_* siblings, but the resource noun 'domain' is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Gives a clear operational precondition: 'Confirm with the user first, listing what will be lost.' That tells the agent when and how to invoke it, but there is no guidance on alternatives (e.g., update_domain_settings or list_domains to inspect first) or on when deletion should be avoided.

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