porkbun-mcp

by major

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

dns_delete

Destructive

Deletes a DNS record by its ID, allowing you to remove unwanted records from a domain's DNS configuration.

Instructions

Delete a DNS record by ID.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "dns_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name (e.g., 'example.com')
`record_id`	Yes	DNS record ID to delete

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	Operation status
`message`	Yes	Confirmation message

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already indicates the destructive nature, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or effects of deleting a record, so it fails to add value beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff.

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 two-parameter delete tool with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it could have noted the distinction from dns_delete_by_name_type or mentioned the domain scoping, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both the 'domain' and 'record_id' parameters. The description's 'by ID' phrase aligns with 'record_id' but does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a DNS record by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling dns_delete_by_name_type. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 like dns_delete_by_name_type. The description gives no context for choosing this method over others, despite the sibling list highlighting a similar alternative.

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