PurelyMail MCP Server

get_ownership_code

Fetches the PurelyMail ownership proof DNS record value needed to add and verify a domain.

Instructions

Gets ownership code record. Gets the DNS record value of the Purelymail ownership proof record, required to add a domain

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ownership_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it does convey that this is a read of a single DNS proof value and that it gates domain addition. It omits auth requirements, whether the value is account-scoped or domain-scoped, its format (TXT vs CNAME target), and any rate or caching behavior — a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete meaning and its dependency. Minor redundancy between 'Gets ownership code record' and the restatement that follows, but no wasted bulk.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to explain in prose what the returned value is (the DNS record value). The notable ambiguity is scope: a zero-parameter tool that is 'required to add a domain' leaves unclear which domain's code it returns and when it becomes stale, which an agent needs in order to sequence its calls correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no spurious parameter narrative.

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 second sentence names a specific resource ('the DNS record value of the Purelymail ownership proof record') and its role, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like add_domain and list_domains. The opening sentence 'Gets ownership code record' is near-tautological, but the elaboration carries the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Required to add a domain' implies the sequencing relative to add_domain, which is useful routing. However, it never states prerequisites, whether it must be called fresh per domain, or when it should not be used, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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