dns_lookupResolve A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA, and CAA records for a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| types | No | Optional comma-separated record types. | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. example.com. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) but adds no behavioral context beyond them. It does not mention default behavior, caching, response shape, or error conditions. The annotations carry the safety profile, but no extra transparency is provided.
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?
A single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the verb and the full list of supported record types. It is immediately scannable and contains no filler.
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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup, the core usage is clear, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description does not state what happens if 'types' is omitted, and there is no output schema to clarify the return structure. Sibling tools cover related DNS areas, so a brief scope statement would improve completeness.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing the valid record types for the 'types' parameter, which the schema only describes generically as 'comma-separated record types.' It does not explain defaults or exact formatting beyond that.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly names the resource: DNS records for a domain, enumerating exact record types. It is easy to tell this is a current DNS lookup tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dns_history or dns_profile.
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 guidance is provided about when to use dns_lookup versus siblings such as dns_history, dns_compare, or dns_profile. The phrase 'resolve records' implies current-record lookup, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing instructions.
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.
Multiple tools have genuinely blurry boundaries: company_change vs company_changes differ only by singular/plural yet serve different purposes, company_domain vs company_classify vs company_lookup_auto all accept a domain, geo_zip_lookup vs geo_enrich vs geo_zip_batch all return ZIP profiles, and email_validate subsumes much of email_disposable and email_free_provider. The domain prefixes help narrow search space, but within many domains an agent cannot reliably predict which tool is the right one.
All 129 tools uniformly follow a snake_case [domain]_[topic] convention (company_, fx_, geo_, dns_, weather_, tax_), which is highly predictable and consistent. Minor deviations include the confusing company_change/company_changes pair, and inconsistent suffix usage (_batch appears on address_validate_batch, company_domains_batch, geo_zip_batch but not on equivalent lookup tools elsewhere).
129 tools far exceeds the 50+ extreem-mismatch threshold, bundling roughly 28 unrelated data domains (weather, fx, tax, ccompany, dns, jobs, flight, email, phone, tax...) into a single MCP surface. Even focusing on one domain forces the agent to load an enormous unrelated tool list; this should be split into many smaller domain-specific servers.
Per-domain coverage is impressively thorough: weather spans current/forecast/hourly/historical/normals/marine/route/air-quality, fx covers rates/convert/historical/volatility/correlation/strenth, and company includes lookup/enrichment/networks/timeline/peer-comparison plus six buyer-tuned signals with profile-introspection tools. Minor gaps like flight being historical-only and smtp probes skipping major email providers are documented scope decisions rather than dead ends.