mcp-infoblox

delete_dns_record

Delete a DNS record from Infoblox by supplying its object reference. Obtain the reference by performing a search first.

Instructions

Delete a DNS record by its object reference. Get the reference from a search first.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes	Object reference of the record to delete (e.g., record:a/ZG5z...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states the deletion action. It omits irreversible consequences, permissions, or side effects like cascade deletes. The format of the reference is mentioned but not behavioral impacts.

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?

The description is two sentences, straight to the point, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and immediately states the prerequisite, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple delete operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells what to do and how to get the input, though it could mention that no return value is expected or that the deletion is permanent.

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?

The input schema already covers the 'ref' parameter with a description and example. The tool description adds context about fetching the reference from a search but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a DNS record'), and the required input ('object reference'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that create records or delete other resources like fixed addresses or zones.

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?

The description advises to get the reference from a search first, providing a precondition but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It implies the tool is for DNS records only but lacks direct contrast with similar delete tools.

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