Delete all TSIG keys associated with a domain to remove its transaction signature authentication from OnlyDNS.
Remove all TSIG keys associated with a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domainName | Yes | Domain name (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / keyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Specific TSIG key name to remove from this domain. If omitted, removes all TSIG keys from the domain.",
- "type": "string"
-}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the one behaviorally important fact for a destructive call: this removes ALL keys for the domain, not one. It omits permissions required, irreversibility, and side effects (e.g. broken TSIG-authenticated transfers).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier 'all' appears immediately after the verb where it matters most.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names what is destroyed but leaves out prerequisites (does the domain need existing keys?), reversibility, and downstream impact on DNS authentication.
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 100% and there is a single documented parameter (domainName with an example), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline of 3.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (all TSIG keys associated with a domain), and the word 'all' scopes the operation usefully. It implicitly separates itself from configure_domain_tsig, but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_domain_tsig or a per-key deletion path. Usage can only be inferred from the verb and the word 'all', which is not real guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.