Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dynadot-mcp

dynadot-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_nameserver

Remove specific registered nameservers by server ID or exact hostname; this does not remove all nameservers beneath a domain.

Instructions

Delete registered nameservers by server_id (comma-separated IDs), or one exact nameserver hostname. This does not delete all nameservers beneath a domain.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostNoLegacy alias for server_domain
domainNoLegacy alias for server_domain: an exact nameserver hostname, not a parent domain
server_idNoNameserver ID or comma-separated IDs
server_domainNoExact nameserver hostname, e.g. ns1.example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.5.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Delete all nameservers for this domain instead"New value: +"Legacy alias for server_domain: an exact nameserver hostname, not a parent domain"
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / host / description
      Previous value: -"Nameserver hostname to delete"New value: +"Legacy alias for server_domain"
    • addedInput schema / properties / host / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / server_domain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact nameserver hostname, e.g. ns1.example.com",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / server_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nameserver ID or comma-separated IDs",
+  "pattern": "^\\d+(,\\d+)*$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a scope limitation ('does not delete all nameservers beneath a domain'), which is real behavioral context about what will not be destroyed. However, it omits irreversibility, whether a nameserver must be unassigned first, and any auth requirements for this destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and targeting options; the scope caveat is compact and non-redundant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers targets and scope but leaves safety-critical gaps: irreversibility, behavior when the nameserver is in use, and failure modes. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the legacy aliases and comma-separated ID pattern. The description corroborates this (comma-separated IDs, exact hostname) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource (delete registered nameservers) and specifies the two ways to identify a target (server_id, or an exact hostname). It also carves out a scope boundary against the related set_nameservers/add_nameserver siblings, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description distinguishes the two targeting methods but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like set_nameservers or delete_domain, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the identifier options rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools