Porkbun MCP Server

delete_dns_record

Delete a specific DNS record by its ID to remove unwanted entries from your domain's DNS configuration.

Instructions

Removes a specific DNS record using its 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": "delete_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The domain name.
`record_id`	Yes	The ID of the record to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without noting that deletion is destructive/irreversible, how non-existent records are handled, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a delete 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise for a tool with only two parameters.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and full schema coverage, so the description is minimally viable for invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance to differentiate from similar delete tools and omits any destructive-action warnings, leaving the description incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description's phrase 'using its ID' reinforces the role of record_id but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'removes' and identifies the resource as a 'specific DNS record' deleted by 'its ID', which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_dns_record_by_name_type. It is not a tautology and conveys the exact scope of the operation.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_dns_record_by_name_type. It implies that the agent should use it when a record ID is available, but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of alternative deletion methods.

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