Remove a DNS zone record by specifying its domain and line number. Use the line number from the DNS records list to delete the intended entry.
Delete a DNS zone record by line number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | Line number of the record to delete (from get_dns_records) | |
| domain | Yes | Domain/zone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It only states 'Delete' without disclosing irreversibility, error behavior if the line doesn't exist, or whether confirmation is returned. It adds a brief but important note about line-number targeting, which is a positive, but overall the behavioral context is minimal.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the core action. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks information about return values, success/failure indications, or side effects. The schema compensates for parameter completeness but not for behavioral completeness, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
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%, so the schema fully documents the 'domain' and 'line' parameters, including the origin of the line number from get_dns_records. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus the 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 (Delete), the resource (DNS zone record), and the method (by line number). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_dns_record and edit_dns_record by specifying the deletion operation and the line-number-based targeting.
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 implies the tool is for removing a specific DNS record using its line number, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any prerequisites. The schema hints that the line number comes from get_dns_records, but the description itself lacks this context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.