PurelyMail MCP Server

delete_user

Permanently removes a PurelyMail user account by its full username, such as user@domain.com, revoking access and freeing the email address.

Instructions

Deletes a user. Deletes a user.

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_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the user's associated data, or required privileges. The single word "Deletes" is the only signal of destructiveness, which the name already conveys.

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 description is short but wastes its entire length on a verbatim repeated sentence, offering zero informational payload rather than front-loading useful constraints. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not discipline.

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?

This is an irreversible mutation with no annotations and no output schema, which demands the description explain consequences and prerequisites; it provides none. Compared to what an agent needs before deleting a user account, the definition is completely inadequate.

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%: the single userName parameter is documented in-schema with type and an example format. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 text "Deletes a user" only restates the tool name delete_user, which the rubric explicitly treats as tautology. It names no scope, no constraints, and nothing that distinguishes it from sibling mutations such as modify_user or delete_domain.

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 mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no reference to alternatives such as modify_user or get_user for verifying the target. The agent must infer all routing decisions entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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