PurelyMail MCP Server

get_user

Retrieves details of a PurelyMail user by username so you can inspect account information for that user.

Instructions

Gets a user. Retrieves details of 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": "get_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

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about return fields, behavior for unknown usernames, required permissions, or error semantics. Nothing beyond the bare assertion that a read occurs is communicated.

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 the second sentence merely repeats the first verb-and-resource statement, wasting space without adding information. There is no front-loaded useful detail.

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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description still omits what "details" comprises, whether missing users produce an error, and how this differs from list_users. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more of that context.

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%, and the userName parameter is documented with a concrete example format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning but does not need to since coverage is complete.

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?

"Gets a user. Retrieves details of a user." restates the tool name in two nearly identical sentences without specifying what details are returned or how it differs from siblings like list_users or get_ownership_code. It is a tautology rather than a specific statement of purpose.

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_users, get_ownership_code, or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied signal is the singular "a user", but the agent must infer that on its own.

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