kinsta_domains_deleteDelete custom domains from a Kinsta environment using the environment ID and a list of domain IDs to remove. This action cleans up domain assignments by removing specified domains from the environment.
Remove custom domains from an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| domain_ids | Yes | Array of domain IDs to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, which covers the destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, impact on SSL, or required permissions). It does not contradict annotations, but also does not go beyond them, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it is arguably too terse for the level of detail that might help an agent.
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 simple delete operation with two well-documented parameters and an annotation flagging destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on how to obtain domain IDs or any post-deletion effects, which would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both env_id and domain_ids are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove custom domains') and the scope ('from an environment'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling domain tools like list, add, verification, and set-primary. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list domains first to obtain domain IDs) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.