NextDNS-Agent-MCP

clear_logs

Destructive

Permanently deletes all entries in a profile's query log with no undo. Requires a two-step confirmation code before any data is removed.

Instructions

DELETES every entry in a profile's query log, for good (no undo). Only when the user asked. Needs a double confirmation: the first call deletes nothing and gives a code; ask the user, and only after they say yes, call again with confirm_code.

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": {
      "profile": "<profile>"
    },
    "name": "clear_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	Yes	The profile's ID or name.
`confirm_code`	No	Leave empty on the first call. After the user says yes, pass the code the first call gave you.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_code / description

Added value: +"Leave empty on the first call. After the user says yes, pass the code the first call gave you."

addedInput schema / properties / profile / description
```
Added value: +"The profile's ID or name."
```

First observedv0.8.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the operation is irreversible ('for good, no undo') and requires human-in-the-loop double confirmation via confirm_code. It doesn't cover auth/permission requirements, but the critical behavioral trait for a destructive tool is fully disclosed.

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 destructive verb and scope, then the guardrail condition, then the mechanism. No filler; every sentence carries necessary information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive, two-phase tool the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, when it is permitted, and the exact call sequence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless reinforces the semantics of confirm_code by tying it to the two-call flow (first call returns the code, second call passes it), adding meaning beyond the field description alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'DELETES every entry in a profile's query log'. The destructive emphasis and the '(no undo)' qualifier distinguish it immediately from read-oriented siblings such as logs, watch_logs, and list_entries.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Only when the user asked') and then spells out the required two-step invocation protocol, including that the first call is a no-op that returns a code. An agent knows exactly how and when to call this without inference.

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