Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pihole-mcp

pihole-mcp

by chris2ao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

remove_domain

Remove an exact domain or regex from a Pi-hole allow or deny list. Specify domain_type and kind to target the correct list and match type.

Instructions

Remove an exact domain or regex from the allow or deny list.

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>",
      "domain_type": "<domain_type>"
    },
    "name": "remove_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoexact
domainYes
domain_typeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive change but does not disclose reversibility, required auth, or what happens when the domain is not present in the list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though it is perhaps too terse given the missing behavioral detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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 described. However, for a destructive, no-annotation, zero-coverage tool, the description omits reversibility, error cases, and required permissions, and adds no differentiation from its overlapping remove_* siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to parameters via 'exact or regex' (the kind enum) and 'allow or deny list' (the domain_type enum), but it never explains the 'domain' value format or enum values explicitly, leaving real gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (remove) plus the resource (an exact domain or regex) and its scope (allow or deny list), so the action is unambiguous. It partly distinguishes itself from add_domain/update_domain/list_domains, but it does not clarify its relationship to the conceptually overlapping remove_from_whitelist and remove_from_blacklist.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions the sibling remove_from_whitelist/remove_from_blacklist or explains when this tool is preferred over them, leaving the agent to guess at routing.

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