Purelymail MCP

Create or update password reset method

upsert_password_reset_method

Destructive

Create or update a user's password reset method by email or phone, choosing an existing target to modify; verify the target belongs to the user before assigning it.

Instructions

Creates a password reset method, or updates an existing one when existingTarget is given. A reset method can take over the account, so make sure the target belongs to the 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>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "upsert_password_reset_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes
`target`	Yes	Email address or phone number
`userName`	Yes	Full username, e.g. "user@domain.com"
`description`	No	Human-readable description
`allowMfaReset`	No	Whether this method can reset the user's MFA as well. Defaults to true.
`existingTarget`	No	Target from list_password_reset_methods. If provided, updates the method matching it instead of creating a new one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by explaining why it is destructive ('A reset method can take over the account') and by imposing an ownership-verification requirement on the caller. Still missing is update semantics: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared when updating an existing method.

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 no filler; the upsert behavior comes first and the safety caveat second, which is the right priority order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 destructive 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when it updates instead of creates, and the key risk. It is only incomplete on partial-update behavior and on what the response contains after a create versus an update.

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 83%, so the schema already documents userName, target, description, allowMfaReset, and existingTarget individually. The description repeats the existingTarget switch logic but adds no format or default guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb pair and resource ('Creates a password reset method, or updates an existing one') and states the exact switch that selects create versus update ('when existingTarget is given'). It does not distinguish itself by name from siblings such as create_app_password or delete_password_reset_method, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The create-vs-update condition is explicit and actionable, and the description adds a prerequisite-style caution ('make sure the target belongs to the user') that an agent should check before calling. It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use this one, e.g. when a dedicated app password would be more appropriate.

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