PurelyMail MCP Server

check_account_credit

Fetch the current PurelyMail account credit balance as a BigDecimal string to check available funds before billing or usage decisions.

Instructions

Returns current account credit.. Returns current account credit, as a BigDecimal string with precision 64.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_account_credit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds the return encoding (BigDecimal string, precision 64), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, required permissions, or whether the value is a monetary balance in a specific currency. Nothing is stated about negative balances or freshness of the value.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single fact is stated twice verbatim, with a stray double period ('credit.. Returns current account credit'), which reads as a copy/paste defect rather than intentional emphasis. The useful new information (BigDecimal precision 64) is buried at the end of the duplicate.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, giving the return type is the key missing piece, and the description supplies it. It still omits scope and permission context that would matter for a billing/credit value with no annotations to fall back on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no input.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('current account credit'), so an agent knows exactly what data it fetches. No sibling tool in the list reads credit/billing state, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description never says whose account (caller vs. target) is meant.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. For a zero-parameter read tool the intent is implied, but the description leaves the agent to infer that no arguments are needed and that this is a safe read rather than a mutation.

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