Resolve A / AAAA / MX / TXT / NS / CNAME records for a domain via DNS-over-HTTPS (Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 JSON). Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | No | Subset of record types to resolve (default: all). | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name (bare host; URLs/trailing dots tolerated) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature and free pricing, plus the backend (Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 JSON). Lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response structure. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus a short phrase. All information is front-loaded and necessary.
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?
No output schema; description does not explain return format or behavior for missing records. Simple tool, but could mention response structure.
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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description restates record types but adds no new semantic value beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states it resolves specific DNS record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME) for a domain via DNS-over-HTTPS. Differentiates from sibling domain intel tools like whois, email auth, reputation, TLS by focusing on DNS records.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions read-only and free, but does not compare to sibling tools or provide context for selection.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.