domains.deleteDelete a registered custom domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domainId | Yes | Domain ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| http_status | Yes | HTTP status of the API response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with this (a delete operation is inherently destructive). The description does not contradict annotations (annotation_contradiction=false). It adds minimal context beyond the annotation — no mention of irreversibility, required permissions, or cascading effects — but is at least consistent. With annotations carrying the destructive-hint burden, a 3 is fair.
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?
A single, clean sentence with zero filler. The action and object are placed up front, making the purpose immediately scannable. No redundant phrasing given the title already says 'Delete domain' — the description still earns its place by clarifying the domain is 'registered'.
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?
This is a very simple tool — one required parameter, output schema present, and an annotation declaring destructiveness. The description 'Delete a registered custom domain' is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of any note about post-delete behavior (e.g., whether the domain is permanently removed or recoverable), but the output schema likely covers return values, keeping the description adequate.
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%, and the single parameter domainId is described as 'Domain ID' in the schema itself. The description 'Delete a registered custom domain' adds nothing beyond the schema — the implication that domainId refers to the domain being deleted is self-evident. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully covers the parameter.
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 the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'registered custom domain' clearly. The word 'registered' subtly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains.register and domains.verify, though it doesn't name them explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage context is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the phrase 'registered custom domain' — the agent can infer this applies to already-registered domains only. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like domains.register.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.