Update an existing DNS record. Requires authentication. Required: domain (e.g., 'example.com'), recordId (string). Optional: name, type, content, ttl, priority
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| recordId | Yes | ||
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Requires authentication' and does not disclose whether omitted optional fields are preserved or reset, whether DNS propagation occurs, what errors can arise, or whether the update is idempotent.
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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear required/optional breakdown. It is efficient, though the list format could be slightly more structured for readability.
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?
For a mutating tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It covers authentication and parameter presence but omits update semantics, response format, error conditions, and side effects, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently handle unexpected outcomes.
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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It does list required and optional parameters and provides a domain format example, which helps. However, it does not explain ttl units, valid type values, priority semantics, or the sessionKey parameter beyond what the schema already describes.
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 and resource: 'Update an existing DNS record.' It also names the required identifiers (domain, recordId), which disambiguates it from createDnsRecord, deleteDnsRecord, getDnsRecord, and listDnsRecords without needing to inspect sibling schemas.
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 phrase 'existing DNS record' implies this tool is for modification rather than creation or deletion, and the required domain/recordId signals that the record must already exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over createDnsRecord or deleteDnsRecord, or mention any exclusions.
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.
The set has several near-duplicate or heavily overlapping tools: initiateTransfer and transferDomain appear to do the same thing, and generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, spinDomainWords, and addPrefix/addSuffixToDomain all occupy suggestion space. Account/profile tools like getAccountSummary, getMyProfile, getRecentActivity, and getMyAuditLogs also blur together.
Many tools follow verb_noun camelCase (createDnsRecord, listInvoices, updateContact), but the broader set mixes styles: osirAppCreateUpload vs osirAppList vs osirAppStatus, plus inconsistent verbs like check/verify/validate/preview for similar lookup actions. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full surface.
105 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, even one spanning domain registration, DNS, VPS, email, billing, app deployment, and site publishing. The surface would be far more coherent split into focused servers by domain.
Core domain, DNS, billing, VPS, mail, and app deployment workflows are broadly covered. However, there are notable gaps: no way to update or reassign the contacts on an existing domain, no update operation for host/glue records, and no VPS power operations like reboot or stop outside the external control panel.