porkbun-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

dnssec_delete

Destructive

Delete a DNSSEC record for a domain by supplying its key tag, removing specific DNSSEC entries to maintain DNS security.

Instructions

Delete a DNSSEC record.

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>",
      "key_tag": "<key_tag>"
    },
    "name": "dnssec_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name (e.g., 'example.com')
`key_tag`	Yes	DNSSEC key tag 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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description merely restates the action 'Delete' and adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose irreversibility, error handling on missing records, or any side effects, so it fails to enrich the agent's understanding 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 sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple delete tool, the description, combined with full schema coverage and an output schema, is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral detail, leaving some gaps in completeness for a fully informed decision.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (domain, key_tag) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. This baseline score is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'DNSSEC record', clearly distinguishing it from DNS record deletion (dns_delete) and other DNSSEC operations like dnssec_create or dnssec_list. It accurately conveys the tool's function.

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, nor are any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection mentioned. The description only states the action, leaving the agent without decision-support for choosing among sibling tools.

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