Query a DNS record for a domain against several major public resolvers (Google, Cloudflare, Quad9, OpenDNS) in parallel and compare the answers. Flags mismatches, which usually mean propagation is still in progress after a DNS change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Bare domain to query, e.g. example.com | |
| recordType | No | Record type: A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, or CNAME (default A) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the parallel-resolver behavior, the comparison logic, and the meaning of flagged mismatches. It does not mention potential limitations like resolver caching or timeouts, but the core behavior and interpretation are clearly disclosed.
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?
Two tightly written sentences: the first describes the mechanism, the second explains the interpretation. Every piece of information earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters, and the description covers both the query behavior and the meaning of results. With no output schema, it hints at the return behavior ('flags mismatches') but does not detail the exact response structure, making it complete enough for invocation but slightly short on output granularity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'domain' and 'recordType'. The description adds useful context about why those parameters matter (comparison across multiple resolvers), but it does not add detail about accepted values, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Query a DNS record'), the exact resource (a domain's DNS record), the method (against major public resolvers in parallel), and the goal (compare answers and flag mismatches). This clearly differentiates it from neighboring health-check tools like domain_health_check or ssl_cert_check.
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 second sentence provides clear context for when to use the tool: after a DNS change, mismatches usually indicate propagation is still in progress. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but it gives enough situational guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
Many tools audit overlapping site signals (seo_audit vs structured_data_extract vs tech_stack_fingerprint; page_performance_check vs pagespeed_insights; ssl_cert_check vs ssl_labs_grade; broken_link_check vs sitemap_url_validator), so an agent could initially pick the wrong one. Descriptions usually clarify the distinction, but the boundaries are not always obvious.
Most names follow a snake_case target+operation pattern (ssl_cert_check, email_deliverability_check), but check_open_ports and check_robots_sitemap reverse the order, and the action suffixes vary widely (check, audit, validate, lookup, extract, grade, report, insights). Still readable, but not a single predictable convention.
At 29 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an undifferentiated grab bag of single-purpose audits rather than a tightly scoped toolkit. Many checks could be consolidated (e.g. the separate SSL and performance tools, or domain_report versus its component checks).
For a web/domain/email/security diagnostics toolbelt, the coverage is unusually broad: DNS, TLS, email, SEO, structured data, vulnerabilities, ports, redirects, and more are all represented. Minor gaps exist (no generic HTTP request/debug tool, no zone-transfer or full WHOIS history), but agents can accomplish most diagnostic workflows without hitting dead ends.