PurelyMail MCP Server

create_app_password

Creates a new app password for a specified PurelyMail user, with an optional name to identify its use.

Instructions

Creates an app password. Creates a new app password.

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": {
      "userHandle": "<userHandle>"
    },
    "name": "create_app_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Optional user-friendly description
`userHandle`	Yes	Full "user@domain.com"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the fact of creation: it says nothing about required permissions, whether existing app passwords are affected, whether the generated secret is returned only once, or whether the operation is reversible via delete_app_password.

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 idea is front-loaded and short, but the second sentence is a verbatim restatement of the first, so the description wastes half its length with zero informational gain.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a credential-minting mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say the newly generated app password is returned and that it may only be shown once; neither is mentioned, leaving the agent unable to interpret the response.

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% — userHandle is documented as a full "user@domain.com" and name as an optional friendly description — so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics, which is the baseline 3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Creates an app password"), so the basic action is identifiable, but it offers no differentiation from siblings such as create_or_update_password_reset_method or the other credential-related tools, and the second sentence merely restates the first.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_or_update_password_reset_method, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., admin rights, whether the user must exist). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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