Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
domain-setup-mcp

domain-setup-mcp

by anasmughal239-alt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

domain_rollback

Destructive

Undo every DNS change from a specific domain_apply run in reverse order, with an optional preview before confirming.

Instructions

Undo every change made by one domain_apply run, in reverse order.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "domain_rollback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes
confirmNoFalse = show what would be undone.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond those annotations: the rollback is complete ("every change") and applied in reverse order, which tells the agent ordering is dependency-aware. It still omits failure/partial-rollback semantics, but that is a modest gap given the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the scope and ordering guarantee are front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool with no output schema, but for a destructive operation it leaves open what happens on partial failure, whether the rollback is atomic, and what the agent gets back after a dry run or a real rollback.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: confirm already documents itself as a dry-run flag. The description's contribution is tying run_id to a prior domain_apply run, which is meaningful, but it adds no format or provenance detail for that required id.

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 ("Undo") plus the exact resource and scope ("every change made by one domain_apply run"), and ties it to the named sibling domain_apply so an agent can place it in the plan/apply/rollback lifecycle without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the linkage to a domain_apply run (roll back after applying), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over re-running domain_apply or domain_plan, and no stated preconditions (e.g., the run must still be reversible).

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