remove_domainRemove a connected domain (by id). It stops serving immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | connected domain id from list_domains |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"connected domain id from list_domains"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating that the domain 'stops serving immediately,' which conveys urgency and immediate impact. This is a useful disclosure not present in structured fields. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The key information (action, identification method, immediate effect) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 single-parameter removal tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the effect and the required identifier. However, it could be improved by including usage context (e.g., 'Use after listing domains with list_custom_domains') or noting prerequisites. The absence of sibling differentiation slightly reduces completeness.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('connected domain id from list_domains'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 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 the action ('Remove'), the resource ('a connected domain'), and the method ('by id'). It also adds immediate consequence ('stops serving immediately'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_sending_domain or remove_custom_domain, which operate on different domain types.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_custom_domain, remove_sending_domain). It lacks explicit context for when a connected domain should be removed compared to other domain removal tools. The agent is left to infer based on the 'connected domain' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.