Komers Sites

Remove a custom domain

remove_custom_domain

Destructive

Disconnect a custom domain. The site stays available on its normal address. A domain connected by nameservers is disconnected as a whole (apex and www) and its DNS leaves Cloudflare.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "remove_custom_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site slug (e.g. "kopitiam-muar") or id
`hostname`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description rightly spends its words on consequences: the site stays reachable on its normal address, and nameserver-connected domains are removed wholesale at apex and www with DNS leaving Cloudflare. It stops short of saying whether the removal is reversible or what error surfaces for a hostname that was never connected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the consequences. Nothing is redundant and no sentence merely restates the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: it covers the effect on the site and on DNS. The remaining gaps are the hostname format ambiguity and behavior for CNAME-style connections.

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 coverage is 50% and hostname has no schema description, so the description carries some of that burden: it clarifies that a nameserver connection covers apex and www as a unit, which informs what hostname represents. It still does not say whether hostname should be the apex, the www host, or either, nor how site slug and id differ.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Disconnect a custom domain', which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling add_custom_domain. It could have named that counterpart explicitly, but the intent is graspable without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this when a domain should no longer be attached. There is no statement of prerequisites (the domain must already be connected), no mention of domain_status for checking state beforehand, and no when-not guidance such as preferring a redirect instead.

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

All Komers Sites tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?