Skip to main content
Glama

DNS records

dns_lookup
Read-only

A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, NS and TXT records of a domain, from public resolvers. Free: needs an API key but no balance.

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>"
    },
    "name": "dns_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain such as example.com.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful operational context not in the annotations: results come from public resolvers (so propagation/caching staleness is possible) and the call requires an API key but consumes no balance. It says nothing about failure behavior for non-existent domains.

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?

Two terse clauses with zero filler, and the returned record types are front-loaded. The fragmentary phrasing ('Free: needs an API key but no balance') is slightly cryptic but still compact and readable.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (record types), where data comes from (public resolvers), and the auth/cost model. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though edge-case handling for unresolvable domains is unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Domain such as example.com'), so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no extra detail such as whether to pass a bare domain versus a URL or whether subdomains are accepted, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the exact resource returned (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, NS, TXT records of a domain) and the source (public resolvers), which lets an agent tell it apart from all sibling SEO/backlink tools. It is written as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb ('look up'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for DNS record retrieval and nothing else in the sibling list overlaps. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no note on whether it works for subdomains or invalid domains, and no named alternative.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.