Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate DNS fix

generate_dns_fix
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate copy-pasteable DNS record snippets that fix one specific issue (e.g. spf_missing → suggested SPF record). Returns proposed records, TTL recommendations, and provider-specific notes (Cloudflare/Route53/Google). Read-only POST to /ai/fix — the API only suggests; it never modifies the user's zone. Provide domain and issue (enum); pass context from prior scan output for tailored output. Use after explain_issue or scan_domain identifies a problem; use lookup_dns afterwards to verify the user has applied the suggested record.

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>",
      "issue": "<issue>"
    },
    "name": "generate_dns_fix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYesIssue identifier, e.g. spf_missing or no_dnssec
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
contextNoOptional issue context from scan output

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue / description
      Added value: +"Issue identifier, e.g. spf_missing or no_dnssec"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it is a read-only POST to /ai/fix, the API only suggests records, and it never modifies the user's zone. It also describes the returned content: proposed records, TTL recommendations, and provider-specific notes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers safety, parameters, and workflow in a compact sequence. Every clause contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool without an output schema, the description explains what is returned and clearly frames the read-only safety model. It also covers required inputs, context usage, and the intended workflow with adjacent tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that context should come from prior scan output for tailored output, and it reinforces the required domain and issue enum.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: generate copy-pasteable DNS record snippets that fix one specific issue, with an example mapping. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from specialized siblings such as generate_spf or generate_dmarc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear workflow context: use after explain_issue or scan_domain identifies a problem, and use lookup_dns afterwards to verify application. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly route away from sibling generators, so it falls short of the highest level.

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

All IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources