bulkDeleteDnsZoneRecordsBulk delete DNS zone records - Delete multiple zone records from a DNS Zone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoneName | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| bulkDeleteDnsZoneRecordsBody | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of irreversibility, impact on DNS resolution, required permissions, or side effects. It simply restates the delete operation without elaborating on consequences beyond what annotations already signal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and free of unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it largely repeats the title and offers no additional structure or information. It is not bloated, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about return values, error cases, required headers, or the effects of bulk deletion. The description offers only a trivial statement of purpose, leaving the agent without essential operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. It does not explain zoneName, x-request-id, or the structure of the request body beyond what is already in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (DNS zone records), and the bulk nature, distinguishing it from sibling deleteDnsZoneRecord which targets a single record. The phrasing 'Delete multiple zone records from a DNS Zone' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'bulk' implies use when deleting multiple records, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like deleteDnsZoneRecord, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the name and phrase 'multiple zone records'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.