remove_keendns_mappingDelete a KeenDNS mapping by name; protected names are refused and dry-run is on by default. Re-create it with the set tool when needed.
Delete a KeenDNS mapping by name. Protected names are refused. dry_run is TRUE by default. Re-create with set_keendns_mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Mapping name | |
| dry_run | No | Default true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does 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 adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: protected names are refused, dry_run defaults to TRUE, and deletion can be reversed via set_keendns_mapping. It doesn't describe what the response contains or whether the mapping must already exist.
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?
Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety caveats immediately after. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact.
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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: dry-run default, protected-name refusal, and a recovery path. Minor gap is the absence of any note on failure behavior for unknown names or what the tool returns.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces dry_run's default and hints that name validity depends on protection status, but adds little syntax or format 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 and resource ('Delete a KeenDNS mapping') plus the selector ('by name'), which cleanly differentiates it from get_keendns_mappings and set_keendns_mapping. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Points to set_keendns_mapping as the re-creation path and warns that protected names are refused, which implicitly tells the agent when this call will fail. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., removing a stale mapping vs. modifying it), but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.