PurelyMail MCP Server

list_users

Retrieves all users under your PurelyMail account, returning up to 1,000 accounts for review or management.

Instructions

Lists all users under your account.. Lists all users under your account (up to 1000).

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_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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 entire behavioral burden. It does disclose a 1000-user ceiling, which is genuine added value, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, truncation behavior past the cap, or what fields are returned.

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 text is duplicated verbatim across two sentences, including a stray double period, which reads as a generation error rather than intentional structure. The only unique content is the parenthetical cap; everything else is wasted.

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 parameterless list tool this could be adequate, but the disclosed 1000 cap raises an unanswered question: what happens beyond it and how does a caller page through results? With no annotations and no output schema, that gap falls entirely on the description.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 verb+resource pair ("Lists all users") is specific and the word "all" implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_user. However, it never names a sibling or claims the account-wide scope explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 that get_user should be used for a single record, and no guidance on what to do when the account has more than 1000 users. An agent gets no routing help from this text.

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