dnsResolve a domain's DNS records, including nameservers and hosting-related records.
Related: whois, ns_reverse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| records | No | DNS records grouped by type | |
| success | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that results include nameservers and hosting-related records, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose response format or other behaviors beyond what annotations provide, so it adds moderate value.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second lists related tools. There is no waste or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded.
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 lookup tool with one parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the scope of the lookup (nameservers, hosting records) and mentions related tools. However, it could be more explicit about when to prefer this tool over the related ones, which prevents a perfect score.
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 has 100% parameter coverage with 'domain' described as 'Domain name'. The description adds no further meaning beyond this, such as format, examples, or constraints. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the baseline 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 the tool resolves a domain's DNS records, specifying nameservers and hosting-related records as included content. It uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a resource ('a domain's DNS records'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois or ns_reverse, only listing them as related.
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 mentions 'Related: whois, ns_reverse,' which implies these are alternatives but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use dns versus those tools. The usage context is implied by the description's focus on DNS records, but no exclusions or direct comparisons are given.
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.
Many domain-search tools (active, aged, expired, deleted, market, nrds, nrds_live) have overlapping boundaries that depend on subtle lifecycle or listing distinctions, and pairs like bulk_tld/tld_check and nrds/nrds_live are easy to confuse. The detailed descriptions and related-tool hints help, but an agent still faces several nearly interchangeable choices.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case convention, with no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles. However, the names use a noun/adjective pattern rather than a clear verb_noun action pattern, and acronyms like nrds, epp_status, and tld_rank make some names less predictable.
32 tools is heavy for a domain toolkit, and several tools are close variants of the same search or check operation, such as active/aged/expired/deleted/market and nrds/nrds_live. The broad domain scope justifies some breadth, but the set would be much more focused with consolidation.
The toolset covers the core domain lifecycle well: availability, registration states, WHOIS, DNS, pricing, TLD statistics, safety, backlinks, typosquatting, and monitoring. The main gaps are that strategy can store data but has no retrieval or deletion action, and market pricing is limited to Sedo only.