Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Official Porkbun MCP Server

Official Porkbun MCP Server

by oborseth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete URL Forward

delete_url_forward
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an existing URL forwarding rule for a domain by its record ID from list_url_forwards; repeated calls are idempotent.

Instructions

Delete a URL forwarding rule by its id (obtained from list_url_forwards). Idempotent.

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_url_forward"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain the forward belongs to.
record_idYesNumeric forward record ID from `list_url_forwards`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does 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 restating 'Idempotent' is redundant with the annotation but does not contradict it, and it adds no new behavioral context such as irreversibility of the domain or rate limits.

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?

Single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, one clause for the id source and one word for idempotency. No waste.

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, no-output schema delete tool, the definition is adequate but thin: it omits whether deletion has side effects, what the response confirms, or error behavior when the id is stale. Annotations carry the safety bits, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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 both domain and record_id are already documented, including the note that record_id comes from list_url_forwards. The description repeats the id sourcing but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Delete' on specific resource 'URL forwarding rule', with the identifier named. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_webhook, delete_dns_record, delete_glue_record by naming the exact resource.

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?

Points to list_url_forwards as the source of the id, which implies you must list first, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or preconditions (e.g., that the rule must exist, or what happens to the domain if it's the only rule).

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