delete_glue_recordDelete a glue record for a specific host on a domain. Idempotent: deleting a missing record still returns success.
Delete a glue record by host on a domain. Idempotent: deleting a non-existent glue record returns success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Parent domain, e.g. `example.com` | |
| subdomain | Yes | Host portion only, e.g. `ns1`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully spells out what idempotency concretely means ('deleting a non-existent glue record returns success'), but it restates what the annotation hints at and omits the operational consequence of removing a glue record (e.g., nameserver resolution breaking).
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, zero filler, with the action and identifier front-loaded and the idempotency caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the real-world impact of deleting a glue record, which is a minor omission.
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%, with both domain and subdomain fully documented including examples, so the schema carries the burden. The phrase 'by host on a domain' loosely maps to the two params but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 (Delete) and resource (glue record), plus the identifying key (by host on a domain). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_glue_record, update_glue_record, and list_glue_records.
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?
The description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g., that the glue record must currently exist, or implications for the domain's nameservers). No when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.