delete_dns_recordRemove a DNS record from a Domeneshop domain using its domain ID and record ID. Use this to clean up outdated or unwanted DNS entries; deletion is permanent.
Delete a DNS record. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_id | Yes | the Domeneshop domain ID, from list_domains | |
| record_id | Yes | the DNS record ID to delete, from list_dns_records |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'This cannot be undone' merely reinforces destructiveHint without adding new context such as required permissions, confirmation behavior, or cascade effects on dependent records.
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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the warning. Nothing needs to be trimmed or moved.
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 two-parameter delete with a complete schema and annotations that already cover the destructive/idempotent profile, the description is essentially sufficient. It could go further by noting confirmation expectations or effects on related records, but nothing essential is missing.
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%: both domain_id and record_id are documented in the schema, including their provenance ('from list_domains' and 'from list_dns_records'). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies with the schema doing all the work.
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 ('Delete a DNS record'), so an agent immediately knows the action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling delete tools such as delete_forward or mutation tools like update_dns_record, so sibling routing is left to the name alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_dns_record, patch_dns_record, or upsert_dns_record, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only caution is the irreversibility note, which is a warning rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.