Purelymail MCP

Update domain settings

update_domain_settings

Update selected settings for an owned domain and optionally trigger a DNS recheck; only supplied fields change, so existing configuration stays intact.

Instructions

Updates settings of an owned domain, and can trigger a DNS recheck. Only the fields provided are changed.

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": "update_domain_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Domain name
`recheckDns`	No	Defaults to false
`allowAccountReset`	No	Whether this domain can be used to reset an account's password
`symbolicSubaddressing`	No	Whether symbolic subaddressing is enabled on this domain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: changes are partial ("Only the fields provided are changed") and the call may trigger an external DNS recheck. It does not say whether the recheck is synchronous, whether it can fail the call, or what the response contains, so 3 is appropriate with annotations carrying the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the core action and with zero redundant wording. The side-effect and patch-behavior clauses both earn their place.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update semantics, and the notable side effect. The only residual gap is that `name` is not explicitly identified as the key selecting which domain is updated, leaving mild ambiguity about whether a rename is possible.

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%, so every parameter is documented in the schema itself, and the description adds no per-parameter detail. The one semantic contribution is the patch contract, which clarifies that omitted booleans (e.g. recheckDns) are left untouched rather than reset to their defaults — useful but not expanded on.

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 ("Updates settings of an owned domain") plus a secondary capability (triggering a DNS recheck), which clearly separates it from add_domain/delete_domain. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase "owned domain" implies a precondition (the domain must already be in the account) and the patch semantics imply this is for partial edits, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over add_domain or delete_domain, and no guidance on when the recheck flag should be set.

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