dnsimple_delete_zone_recordDelete a DNS record from a zone. WARNING: permanently removes a live DNS record. API: DELETE /{account}/zones/{zone}/records/{record}. Returns 204 (no body).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | Yes | Zone name, e.g. example.com. | |
| record | Yes | Numeric record id to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly warning about permanence and stating the return status (204 no body), which provides context beyond annotations.
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 concise with two sentences covering purpose, warning, API endpoint, and return status. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no redundancy.
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?
For a simple deletion tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, the irreversibility, the API endpoint, and the expected response (204).
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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are adequate. The tool description adds minimal new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool deletes a DNS record from a zone, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like create, update, and list zone records by emphasizing deletion and the irreversible nature.
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 description includes a warning that the operation permanently removes a live DNS record, which helps agents decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though siblings imply other options.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (domain check, get, list, prices; zone record CRUD; contacts; zones; whoami). No overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent pattern: dnsimple_<verb>_<noun> (e.g., dnsimple_check_domain, dnsimple_list_zone_records). No mixing of conventions.
12 tools cover essential domain management and DNS record operations without being excessive or too sparse. The scope aligns well with typical DNS provider functionality.
Covers core domain lookups, zone record CRUD, and account info. Missing domain registration, renewal, or transfer tools, but the server focuses on managing existing resources, so the gap is minor.