PurelyMail MCP Server

list_domains

Lists domains accessible to a PurelyMail account, optionally including shared domains, so you can review available domains and choose one for email management.

Instructions

Lists domains accessible to an account.. Lists domains accessible to an account, possibly including shared domains.

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": "list_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`includeShared`	No	Whether to include basic Purelymail shared domains in the response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 authentication requirements, whether results are paginated, how shared vs. owned domains are marked, or what the response looks like. The sole behavioral hint is that shared domains may appear in results, which is too thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 states the same fact twice in near-identical sentences, wasting half its length on repetition while still omitting useful specifics. Structure is front-loaded but the duplication makes it feel unedited.

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a returned domain entry contains and how shared domains are distinguished, but it does not. An agent knows it lists domains and little else.

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 includeShared is already fully documented with its default and meaning; the description adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond echoing the concept of shared domains. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the explaining.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence "Lists domains accessible to an account" names a specific verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no differentiation from the domain-mutating siblings (add_domain, update_domain_settings, delete_domain) and no clarification of which account's domains are returned.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or account scoping, and no routing to alternatives. The only directional hint is an ambiguous "possibly including shared domains" that leaves it unclear when an agent should set includeShared.

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