PurelyMail MCP Server

delete_domain

Permanently delete a domain from PurelyMail, including all associated settings and users, to remove the domain and its dependent data entirely.

Instructions

Delete Domain. Deletes a domain, and all dependent settings and users.

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": "delete_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical cascade behavior ('all dependent settings and users'), which is the main risk an agent needs to know. However, it omits whether the deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, and whether users are deleted outright or merely detached.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. The opening 'Delete Domain.' largely restates the tool name and could be dropped without loss.

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 destructive, unannotated, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the cascade side effect but leaves irreversibility, required permissions, and the meaning of 'name' unstated. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies that it is the domain name or what format it takes (FQDN, ID, etc.). The word 'domain' in the text implies the mapping but adds no real semantic detail.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Delete Domain. Deletes a domain...'), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_user or delete_routing_rule. It does not explicitly name an alternative or scope boundary, so it falls short of the top mark.

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 versus update_domain_settings or list_domains, and no stated prerequisites or confirmation steps. The only implied usage cue is the word 'Delete', leaving the agent to infer everything else.

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