Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
porkbun-mcp-server

porkbun-mcp-server

by Avicennasis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_dnssec_record

Remove a DNSSEC DS record from your domain by providing the key tag, with a required reason for audit.

Instructions

Remove a DNSSEC DS record by key tag. reason is required; audit row action=DNSSEC_DELETE.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "key_tag": "<key_tag>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dnssec_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
reasonYes
key_tagYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at an audit trail via 'audit row action=DNSSEC_DELETE' but omits critical traits like destructiveness, reversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a deletion operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and direct phrasing. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core action but lacks completeness for a destructive operation. It does not address success/failure outcomes, constraints (e.g., valid key tag), or safety notes, which would be valuable given the lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'key tag' is the identifier for removal and that 'reason' is required for auditing. However, 'domain' is left without explanation, and no further details are given for parameter formats or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Remove), the resource (DNSSEC DS record), and the method (by key tag). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_dnssec_record' and 'delete_dns_record'.

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?

The description notes that 'reason' is required and mentions the audit row action, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., domain must have DNSSEC enabled) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools