mcp-cloudflare-crunchtools

Delete Dns Record Tool

delete_dns_record_tool

Delete a Cloudflare DNS record using its zone ID and record ID to remove unwanted or outdated entries.

Instructions

Delete a DNS record.

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": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dns_record_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone_id`	Yes	Zone ID (32-character hex string)
`record_id`	Yes	DNS record ID (32-character hex string)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.2Oct 12, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / record_id / description
```
Added value: +"DNS record ID (32-character hex string)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / zone_id / description
```
Added value: +"Zone ID (32-character hex string)"
```
Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.1Oct 1, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / record_id / description
```
Removed value: -"DNS record ID (32-character hex string)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / zone_id / description
```
Removed value: -"Zone ID (32-character hex string)"
```
First observedv0.5.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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, and 'Delete' is the only signal that this is a destructive, likely irreversible mutation. It says nothing about required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, confirmation requirements, or the effect on associated records.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single three-word sentence is short but does not earn its place — it is under-specification rather than conciseness, duplicating the tool name instead of front-loading useful 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 explained, but for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage the description is far too thin: no safety, permission, or reversibility context is supplied anywhere.

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 100%, and both parameters (zone_id, record_id) carry format guidance (32-character hex string) in the schema itself. The description adds nothing further, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It gives a verb+resource ('Delete a DNS record'), which does implicitly separate it from create/update/get/list siblings, but it restates the tool name and title almost verbatim and adds no scope, target, or effect detail. It is accurate but minimal — the reader learns nothing they could not infer from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. resolving zone_id/record_id first via list_dns_records_tool or get_dns_record_tool), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server