Skip to main content
Glama
hofill
by hofill

remove_dns

Remove DNS records by specifying a domain and optional record type to manage DNS configurations in RequestRepo MCP server.

Instructions

Remove DNS records by domain and optional type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
record_typeNo
confirmNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The remove_dns method in RequestrepoMCPService class contains the core business logic for removing DNS records. It requires confirmation, calls the underlying client's remove_dns method, and returns the updated status along with the domain and record_type.
    def remove_dns(
        self,
        *,
        domain: str,
        record_type: DnsRecordType | None = None,
        confirm: bool,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        self._require_confirm(confirm, "remove_dns")
        updated = self._client().remove_dns(domain=domain, record_type=record_type)
        return {
            "updated": updated,
            "domain": domain,
            "record_type": record_type,
        }
  • The remove_dns function decorated with @mcp.tool() that registers the tool with the FastMCP server. It accepts domain (required), record_type (optional), and confirm (default False) parameters, and delegates to the service layer.
    @mcp.tool()
    def remove_dns(
        domain: str,
        record_type: DnsRecordType | None = None,
        confirm: bool = False,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Remove DNS records by domain and optional type."""
        return resolved_service.remove_dns(domain=domain, record_type=record_type, confirm=confirm)
  • The DnsRecordType type definition used by remove_dns for the record_type parameter. It's a Literal type that allows values: 'A', 'AAAA', 'CNAME', 'TXT'.
    DnsRecordType = Literal["A", "AAAA", "CNAME", "TXT"]
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a destructive operation ('Remove') but doesn't specify if it's irreversible, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The 'confirm' parameter hints at safety but isn't explained, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key parameters. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and main parameters but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but for a destructive tool, more context would improve completeness.

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 mentions 'domain and optional type', covering 2 of 3 parameters, but omits 'confirm'. It adds minimal semantics (e.g., 'optional type' implies record_type can be null) but doesn't explain parameter interactions or effects, resulting in a baseline score due to partial coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('DNS records'), specifying the key parameters ('by domain and optional type'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_dns' (read) and 'update_dns' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_all_requests' or other deletion tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing records), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or refer to siblings like 'delete_all_requests' for different contexts. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hofill/RequestRepo-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server