Skip to main content
Glama

Update a dynamic hostname's addresses (free, token)

hostname_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Free: sets the hostname's A, AAAA, TXT, ACME TXT or HTTPS records; fields left out stay as they are, [] deletes. Give explicit public addresses: the caller's own address ('auto') is not available here, because through MCP it would be your client's server, not your machine (routers use /nic/update). Pass the hostname token (jdh_...) from the create answer, or a scoped account API key (jdk_...) made in the dashboard. Either passes through your model context and transcript: treat it like a password.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "hostname_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aNoIPv4 addresses (public). [] deletes. Explicit addresses only.
txtNoTXT values at the hostname. [] deletes.
aaaaNoIPv6 addresses (public). [] deletes. Explicit addresses only.
waitNoOptional: answer only once both nameservers (ns1 and ns2) serve the change, at most 20 s. The answer's served object says which do; use it before asking an ACME server to check a DNS-01 TXT record.
httpsNoHTTPS (SVCB) record values. [] deletes.
tokenNoThe hostname token (jdh_...); or give api_key.
api_keyNoInstead of token: an account API key (jdk_...) whose scope covers this object (read, or write for changes).
acme_txtNoTXT values at _acme-challenge.<hostname> (ACME DNS-01). [] deletes.
hostnameYesThe hostname, e.g. myhome.dynkite.com.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / wait
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: answer only once both nameservers (ns1 and ns2) serve the change, at most 20 s. The answer's served object says which do; use it before asking an ACME server to check a DNS-01 TXT record.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already flag destructive=true, idempotent=true): it discloses partial-update semantics ('fields left out stay as they are, [] deletes'), the credential handling requirement, and the security caveat that the token passes through model context and transcript. That credential/security disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of describing what the response contains beyond the passing mention of a 'served' object.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence carries information. The middle sentence is long and heavily parenthetical ('(routers use /nic/update)'), which slightly hurts scannability, but no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the partial-update contract, the credential options, the 'auto' exclusion, and the wait/DNS-propagation implication. An agent can invoke this correctly without opening anything else.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: the omission-vs-empty-list distinction governs every record array, and the explicit rejection of 'auto' prevents a likely caller error that the schema's 'Explicit addresses only' only hints at. It also explains the two credential paths (jdh_ token vs jdk_ scoped key) and their scope requirement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact record types it writes ('sets the hostname's A, AAAA, TXT, ACME TXT or HTTPS records'), so the agent knows precisely what operation this is. It differentiates itself from the non-MCP /nic/update path and implicitly from hostname_create (token comes 'from the create answer'), but never contrasts itself with sibling tools like records_change or records_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context: this is the free path, and the caller's own address ('auto') is explicitly unavailable here because through MCP it would be the client's server. It points routers at /nic/update as the alternative. What it lacks is guidance on choosing between this and sibling record-mutation tools such as records_change.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources