Delete DNS records in a zone by name and type, or target a single record by including its content value. Use it to remove unwanted DNS entries selectively.
Delete records by name and type, or just the one with this value. Scope dns:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Record name (@ for the apex) | |
| type | Yes | Record type | |
| zone | Yes | Domain | |
| content | No | Only the record with this value (otherwise every record of that name and type) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the crucial branch that omitting content deletes EVERY record of that name and type — a high-impact behavior not derivable from annotations. It also discloses the required auth scope (dns:write), which is genuine added context. It stops short of stating irreversibility or no-match behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope branch, with the auth scope appended. No filler and nothing redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the operation, the bulk-vs-single branch, and the required scope. Missing only edge-case behavior such as no-match results or error shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by explaining the interaction between name/type and content — content narrows the operation to a single matching record. That conditional semantic is the key thing an agent needs and is not spelled out in the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (DNS records) with an explicit conditional: all records of a name/type, or the single record matching a value. It does not name the sibling dns_delete_zone as the alternative for zone-level deletion, so the differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The conditional 'or just the one with this value' implies when to supply content versus omit it, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose dns_delete_zone over this tool, and no note on what happens when no records match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.