PurelyMail MCP Server

delete_password_reset_method

Deletes a password reset method for a specified PurelyMail user, removing a recovery option from their account. Use it to revoke a reset target no longer needed.

Instructions

Deletes a password reset method.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_password_reset_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No	Target of password reset method
`userName`	Yes	Username

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

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 behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether permissions are required, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens to a user's remaining reset methods. Notably, it is silent on the fact that the optional 'target' parameter may scope the deletion to one method versus all methods for a user.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single efficient sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, and there is no front-loaded scoping or qualifier to help selection.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits irreversibility, permission requirements, error behavior for unknown users or targets, and the blast radius of omitting 'target'.

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%, so both parameters are documented by the schema and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond those terse field descriptions, and in particular does not explain the interaction between the optional 'target' and required 'userName'.

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?

"Deletes a password reset method" restates the tool name with no added scope. It does not say what a 'password reset method' is, nor how this differs from sibling create_or_update_password_reset_method or list_password_reset_methods, leaving the agent to infer the resource semantics.

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. An agent cannot tell from the description when to delete versus update a reset method, or whether the user must already exist.

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