Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ranla

by ai.ranla
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Apply domain DNS records

apply_domain_dns
Destructive

Create the sending domain's DNS records at your DNS provider (Cloudflare, GoDaddy, or Vercel), using the connection stored in the dashboard. Connect the provider in the dashboard first; registrar credentials are never passed through here.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain id or name (example.com)
providerYesDNS provider that hosts the domain

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
recordsNoThe records that were applied
resultsYesWhat happened to each record
providerYescloudflare, godaddy, or vercel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / credentials
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional inline registrar credentials (GoDaddy api key/secret)",
-  "type": "object"
-}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"Domain id or name (example.com)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Added value: +"DNS provider that hosts the domain"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "description": "cloudflare, godaddy, or vercel",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "records": {
+      "description": "The records that were applied",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "host": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "priority": {
+            "description": "MX preference",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "purpose": {
+            "description": "What the record is for, e.g. spf, dkim, dmarc",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "description": "Record type: TXT, CNAME, MX…",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "host",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "What happened to each record",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "action": {
+            "description": "created, updated, unchanged, or merged",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "detail": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "host": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "purpose": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "host",
+          "action"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "provider",
+    "domain",
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds value beyond them by explaining that the write happens against an external provider using a stored dashboard connection and that registrar credentials are never passed through. It could go further by warning that this mutates live DNS at the provider, but the auth-model disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two required inputs plus the auth prerequisite. It omits any mention of failure modes (e.g., provider not yet connected) but is otherwise sufficient for a two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain id/name and the provider enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's provider list mirrors the enum without adding format or lookup semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create the sending domain's DNS records') and enumerates the supported providers, making it clearly distinct from generic sibling names like create_domain or verify_domain. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it does not reach the top tier of explicit differentiation.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Connect the provider in the dashboard first') and clarifies the auth route, which is genuinely actionable ordering guidance. It does not state when to choose this over verify_domain, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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

All Ranla 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