Purelymail MCP

Delete user

delete_user

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Purelymail user by full username, removing the mailbox and associated access.

Instructions

Permanently deletes a user.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one meaningful detail beyond that — 'permanently' signals irreversibility — but says nothing about required permissions, whether the operation can be undone, or what happens to a user's associated resources (domains, routing rules, passwords).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the irreversible effect, and zero redundant wording. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive operation whose annotations already flag data loss, the definition covers the essentials of what it does. It is incomplete for a deletion tool in that it omits authorization requirements, cascading effects on related resources, and any warning about verifying the target user before calling.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example format, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Permanently deletes a user' gives a specific verb and resource with a scope modifier (permanently), so the effect is unambiguous and clearly distinct from create_user, get_user or modify_user. It stops short of naming any sibling or describing what else is removed alongside the user.

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 word 'permanently' implies caution, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives (e.g., modifying or disabling a user instead). An agent can infer intent from the name, but the description supplies no routing guidance.

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