Perform DNS lookup to retrieve DNS record details for a domain. Returns A records (IP addresses), MX records (mail servers), CNAME records, NS records (nameservers), and TXT records. Use for email setup verification, DNS troubleshooting, or server infrastructure research.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to look up (e.g. 'google.com', 'example.org', 'subdomain.example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no need to repeat. Description adds value by listing the types of records returned, providing context beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences: operation, output, and use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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?
Given a simple schema with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers the purpose and output adequately. No output schema is expected, so the lack of return details is acceptable.
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%; the description adds no additional details about the 'domain' parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 clearly states it performs DNS lookup and retrieves specific record types (A, MX, CNAME, NS, TXT). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_ssl or lookup_whois, which serve different purposes.
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?
Explicitly lists three use cases: email setup verification, DNS troubleshooting, server infrastructure research. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but the guidance is direct and actionable.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of web analysis: DNS records, SSL certificates, full website crawling, technology stack detection, and WHOIS data. There is no ambiguity in their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_dns, check_ssl, crawl_website, detect_tech_stack, lookup_whois. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
5 tools is appropriate for a focused SEO and web analysis server. It covers the core areas without being excessive or too thin, though a couple more could be added.
Covers DNS, SSL, crawling, tech stack, and WHOIS, but misses common SEO tools like HTTP header inspection, robots.txt/sitemap analysis, or page speed evaluation. Notable gaps exist.