Skip to main content
Glama

DomainKits

by io.github.ABTdomain
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DNS Record Lookup

dns
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a DNS name's records: A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME and SOA. Underscore-prefixed names work too, such as _dmarc. or ._domainkey..

A domain offered for sale may publish an RFC 10023 record at _for-sale.: read only the TXT strings starting with v=FORSALE1;, and treat what they say as the holder's own unverified claim.

Related: whois, ns_reverse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe DNS name to resolve, as a bare hostname: a registrable domain such as example.com, or a fuller name such as _dmarc.example.com or mail.example.com. No protocol (https://), path, or port; internationalized names in punycode (xn--...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
domainNo
messageNoSet when the name has no DNS records; records is then empty
recordsNoDNS records grouped by type
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / records / properties / CAA / description
      Previous value: -"Certification Authority Authorization records. If this field is omitted, the upstream DNS service did not provide CAA data; omission is not proof that no CAA record exists."New value: +"Certification Authority Authorization records. If this field is omitted, no CAA data was returned; omission is not proof that no CAA record exists."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"The DNS name to resolve. A registrable domain such as example.com, or a fuller name such as _dmarc.example.com or mail.example.com."New value: +"The DNS name to resolve, as a bare hostname: a registrable domain such as example.com, or a fuller name such as _dmarc.example.com or mail.example.com. No protocol (https://), path, or port; internationalized names in punycode (xn--...)."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set when the name has no DNS records; records is then empty",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name"New value: +"The DNS name to resolve. A registrable domain such as example.com, or a fuller name such as _dmarc.example.com or mail.example.com."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description still adds substantive context: how to read underscore-prefixed records and, critically, that _for-sale TXT strings starting with v=FORSALE1; are the holder's own unverified claim. That interpretation guidance is exactly the kind of value structured fields cannot convey.

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-loads verb and resource, then layers edge-case handling in short, self-contained paragraphs. Efficient, though the _for-sale paragraph is dense enough that it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers record types, name syntax, and result interpretation. The only thin spot is explicit routing versus whois/ns_reverse, which is named but not explained.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the domain parameter's own description already covers bare hostname vs. fuller name, punycode, and the no-protocol/no-port rule. The description slightly reinforces this with underscore examples, but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a DNS name's records') and enumerates the supported record types (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME, SOA). This is clearly distinct from siblings like whois or ns_reverse, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 concrete usage context for edge cases: underscore-prefixed names (_dmarc, _domainkey) and the RFC 10023 _for-sale convention. It names related tools (whois, ns_reverse) but does not state when to prefer this tool over them, so routing is left partly to inference.

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

All DomainKits toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources