PurelyMail MCP Server

delete_app_password

Deletes an existing PurelyMail app password for a specified user account, removing credentials that are no longer needed.

Instructions

Deletes app password. Deletes an 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": {
      "userName": "<userName>",
      "appPassword": "<appPassword>"
    },
    "name": "delete_app_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userName`	Yes	Full username, e.g. "user@domain.com"
`appPassword`	Yes	Full app password

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

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, and it discloses nothing beyond the implied destructive mutation. It does not state irreversibility, permission or admin requirements, whether deletion is immediate or queued, or what happens if the password does not exist.

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 content is short but the sentence is duplicated verbatim ('Deletes app password. Deletes an app password.'), which is pure waste rather than conciseness. No additional information is front-loaded or structured.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain effects, failure modes, and permissions. Instead it supplies only a repeated one-line restatement, leaving the agent with nothing beyond the schema.

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 both required parameters (userName, appPassword) are documented in the schema with examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about parameter format or matching semantics, but the schema already carries that load.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'Deletes app password.' It names the verb and resource but adds no scope, target system, or distinguishing detail from the sibling create_app_password. This is tautology by the rubric's definition.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no reference to alternatives such as create_app_password or delete_password_reset_method. An agent must infer entirely from the name when deletion is appropriate versus other password-management siblings.

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