PurelyMail MCP Server

delete_routing_rule

Deletes an existing routing rule by its ID to remove outdated or incorrect email routing configurations.

Instructions

Deletes an existing routing rule

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": {
      "routingRuleId": "<routingRuleId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_routing_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routingRuleId`	Yes	This should be returned from a ListRoutingRequest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It says 'Deletes' but never states that the action is irreversible, what happens to domains or addresses bound to the rule, what permissions are required, or what an error looks like.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but nearly empty.

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, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum flag irreversibility and side effects. It leaves an agent without the information needed to decide whether calling it is safe.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains that the ID comes from a list routing request. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies for a single fully documented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Deletes an existing routing rule'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_routing_rule and list_routing_rules. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the name-plus-description pairing is clear enough for selection.

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 list_routing_rules or update options, and no prerequisites such as needing the ID from list_routing_rules or required permissions. The only hint at sourcing the ID lives in the schema, not the description.

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