domain_deleteRemoves a custom domain from a Lizard service, requiring confirm=true because the deletion is destructive and irreversible.
Use this when the user wants to remove a custom domain from a Lizard service. This is destructive and requires explicit confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to proceed; there is no interactive confirmation in MCP | |
| project | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| hostname | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's "This is destructive" largely restates structured data. It does add one piece of real context: confirmation must be explicit because there is no interactive prompt, reinforcing the confirm param. It says nothing about what happens to DNS records, whether the operation is reversible, or prerequisite verification.
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 triggering condition and followed by the safety note. No filler; the only slight redundancy is the destructiveness claim, which annotations already carry.
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 destructive 4-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and the confirmation gate but leaves the three identifier parameters undocumented and doesn't say what the result of a successful delete looks like. Adequate to call safely, incomplete to call precisely.
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 only 25% – just confirm is documented. The description does not explain project, service, or hostname at all, so an agent has no help on whether hostname must be an attached domain, whether project/service accept slugs or IDs, or format expectations. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 and resource: remove a custom domain from a Lizard service. This clearly separates it from domain_attach, domain_verify, and the domain_*_list siblings. It could be a touch sharper about scope (e.g. that the domain's DNS records go with it), but the core purpose is unmistakable.
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?
"Use this when the user wants to remove a custom domain" gives an explicit triggering intent, which is more than most siblings offer. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. detach vs delete), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.