Purelymail MCP

Get user

get_user

Read-only

Retrieves a user's settings—search indexing, recovery, 2FA requirement, spam filtering, and password reset methods—by full username to review or verify mailbox configuration.

Instructions

Retrieves a user's settings: search indexing, recovery, 2FA requirement, spam filtering and password reset methods.

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": "get_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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating which setting categories come back, which matters given there is no output schema, but it omits permission requirements and failure behavior for an unknown user.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. The trailing list of setting categories is dense but useful given no output schema.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations that already encode safety, the description covers what is fetched and roughly what is returned. Missing only access prerequisites and error conditions, which are minor at this complexity.

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 a single required userName parameter that already documents the full username format with an example. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a user's settings') and enumerates the settings returned (search indexing, recovery, 2FA, spam filtering, password reset methods). That distinguishes it from list_users and modify_user by content, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisite information such as whether admin rights are needed or whether the user must already exist. The purpose implies the use case but the definition never states it.

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