dns_lookupQuery live DNS records for a domain over public resolvers. Supports A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, NS, TXT, SOA, SRV, CAA and PTR. Use it to verify a deployment's DNS, inspect MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC TXT records, check nameserver delegation, or confirm propagation after a change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Record type. Defaults to A. | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. github.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the 'live' and 'public resolvers' behavioral traits, and the verb 'query' implies a non-destructive read operation. It could explicitly state that no changes are made or discuss rate limits, but the essentials are covered.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then supported details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or error conditions, but for a read-only DNS lookup with well-defined input parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, supported types, and common use cases sufficiently.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking record types to real-world checks (e.g., MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC TXT records, nameserver delegation), enriching what the schema alone provides.
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 verb+resource: 'Query live DNS records for a domain over public resolvers.' It lists all supported record types and provides concrete use cases, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like reverse_dns or whois_domain.
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 description provides explicit use cases: 'verify a deployment's DNS, inspect MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC TXT records, check nameserver delegation, or confirm propagation after a change.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 resource and action. IP lookup, ASN, reverse DNS, blacklist, and VPN/proxy checks are clearly differentiated. Even the email tools focus on different mechanisms (auth vs breach).
All tools use consistent lower_snake_case, mostly following the <object>_<action> pattern. The few exceptions like my_ip and server_info still fit the overall style. There is no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb usage.
Fifteen tools is a well-scoped set for a comprehensive IP intelligence service. Each tool covers a unique capability without redundancy, and the count never feels bloated.
The surface covers the full lifecycle of IP investigation: lookups, reputation checks, batch processing, domain/DNS/email intelligence, and website security audits. Missing operations like SSL certificate checks are nice-to-have but not essential. The server_info tool also helps users discover capabilities.