Look up DNS records for a domain via Cloudflare DNS-over-HTTPS. Returns A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME, and SOA records. Use to see where a domain is hosted, who runs its mail and DNS, and what verification/policy TXT records it publishes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | No | Optional subset of record types, e.g. ["MX","TXT"]. Defaults to all common types. | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. stripe.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the external service (Cloudflare DNS-over-HTTPS) and lists all returned record types. While it doesn't cover errors, rate limits, or response structure, the simplicity of a read-only DNS lookup makes this adequate. A higher score would require explicit side-effect or error handling details.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. Purpose appears first, followed by use cases. Every word adds value.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behaviors: service provenance, record types, and use cases. It lacks explicit error/limitation notes (e.g., DNSSEC, timeouts) and doesn't differentiate from siblings, but these are minor gaps for a simple lookup tool.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the types parameter's optionality and example values, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Look up DNS records'), the resource ('domain'), the method ('via Cloudflare DNS-over-HTTPS'), and the specific record types returned (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME, SOA). It also provides concrete use cases (hosting location, mail/DNS operations, TXT records) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_intel or tech_stack.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use to see where a domain is hosted...'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools; the absence of exclusions or alternatives is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of domain intelligence: DNS records, registration, combined report, email authentication, subdomains, and tech stack. There is no overlap; even the domain_report is a composite that doesn't conflict with individual tools.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern varies: some are noun_verb (dns_lookup), noun_noun (domain_intel, domain_report, email_deliverability, tech_stack), or single noun (subdomains). This is mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.
Six tools is an ideal scope for a domain intelligence server. Each tool adds unique value without redundancy, covering registration, DNS, email, subdomains, tech stack, plus a combined report.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of domain intelligence: registration details, DNS records, subdomain discovery, email deliverability, and website technology fingerprinting. No obvious missing capabilities for typical lead qualification or research workflows.