Purelymail MCP

List password reset methods

list_password_reset_methods

Read-only

Lists the password reset methods configured for a given Purelymail username so you can review available account recovery options.

Instructions

Lists a user's password reset methods. The API returns them under a key named users.

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": "list_password_reset_methods"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

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. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious trait not present in structured data: results are returned under a key named `users` despite being a list of reset methods, which matters when parsing the response. It says nothing about result size, ordering, pagination, or permission requirements, so the added context is useful but thin.

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 primary purpose front-loaded and the response-key quirk second; nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, this covers the essentials plus the surprising response key. Missing pagination and permission context keeps it just short of complete.

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 the userName parameter is already documented with the 'user@domain.com' format example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted identifier forms or error behavior for unknown users.

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 plus resource with scope: 'Lists a user's password reset methods,' which separates it cleanly from siblings like upsert_password_reset_method and delete_password_reset_method. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation type 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as whether the caller may query arbitrary users or only their own account. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the single required parameter.

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