Purelymail MCP

Delete routing rule

delete_routing_rule

Destructive

Deletes a Purelymail routing rule by ID, enabling removal of unwanted email routing configurations from an account.

Instructions

Deletes a routing rule.

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": {
      "routingRuleId": "<routingRuleId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_routing_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routingRuleId`	Yes	Rule id from list_routing_rules

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no word on irreversibility, whether deletion cascades, whether confirmation is required, or what happens when the id does not exist. For a destructive operation this is a missed opportunity, though it does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. A single clause is structurally fine but leaves nothing for the agent to act on beyond the name.

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?

This is an irreversible destructive mutation with no output schema and no recovery information. Given the complexity of a delete operation, the description should at minimum note irreversibility and refer to list_routing_rules as the id source; neither appears.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description ("Rule id from list_routing_rules") already tells the agent where to source the value. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Deletes a routing rule" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim; the only information conveyed is the verb plus the resource already encoded in the name. It does not distinguish this from siblings beyond the obvious delete semantics, and it says nothing about scope or which routing rule.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g., that the id must come from list_routing_rules), and no mention of alternatives or consequences. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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