Squish

Update dns record

update_dns_record

Destructive

Update an existing DNS record on a domain the customer owns. Two-step usage: (1) call with confirm:false to fetch the current record + preview the change and describe both to the user in plain English, then (2) ONLY after the user explicitly says yes, call again with confirm:true to apply. NEVER call confirm:true without an explicit affirmative in the user's most recent message. You typically need to call get_dns_records first to find the recordId.

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>",
      "recordId": "<recordId>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "update_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ttl`	No	Optional: new TTL in seconds (default keeps existing).
`host`	No	Optional: new subdomain host (relative, e.g. "www"). Defaults to existing host.
`value`	Yes	New value (IP, hostname, text, etc.). Required.
`domain`	Yes	Domain the record lives on (e.g. "foo.com").
`confirm`	No	false (default) returns preview; true applies the change. Pass true ONLY after explicit user confirmation.
`recordId`	Yes	NameSilo record ID to update — get it from get_dns_records.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the non-obvious preview/apply gating mechanism: the confirm:false call returns the current record and a preview of the change, and confirm:true actually mutates. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before touching a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the workflow, then the prerequisite — a sensible order with no filler. The confirm:true warning is restated in both the numbered steps and a standalone NEVER sentence, which is defensible for safety but is mild redundancy.

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 destructive, 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, the confirmation workflow, and what the preview call yields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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% and every property already carries a description, including confirm's default and recordId's source. The description adds only a marginal clarification that confirm:false returns the current record plus a preview, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing DNS record") plus scope ("on a domain the customer owns"), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools create_dns_record and delete_dns_record without needing to name them.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit two-step protocol (confirm:false first, then confirm:true), a hard exclusion ("NEVER call confirm:true without an explicit affirmative"), and a prerequisite routing hint to get_dns_records for the recordId. This is about as prescriptive as an agent could want.

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

All Squish tools Inspect

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

Need Help?