dns_lookup_allQuery all major DNS record types (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME) for a domain in one call. Returns results grouped by type with TTLs and values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to look up (e.g., "example.com") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name that was queried | |
| records | Yes | DNS records grouped by type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "domain": {
+ "description": "Domain name that was queried",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "records": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "ttl_seconds": {
+ "description": "Time-to-live in seconds",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Record data value",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ttl_seconds",
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "description": "DNS records grouped by type",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "domain",
+ "records"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "domain": "example.com"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context about the return format: results are 'grouped by type with TTLs and values,' which goes beyond the annotation safety profile and helps the agent anticipate the response structure.
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 long, front-loads the core action ('Query all major DNS record types'), and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers what is queried, the return grouping, and the efficiency aspect ('in one call'). A minor gap is that 'major' record types are enumerated but not exhaustive (e.g., no SOA, SRV), which could be slightly ambiguous, but this does not significantly detract from completeness.
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% for the single 'domain' parameter, which already includes a description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and clearly identifies the resource ('all major DNS record types') and scope ('for a domain in one call'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup by emphasizing the comprehensive coverage of multiple record types in a single operation.
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 clearly implies the tool is for comprehensive DNS lookups across multiple record types, grouping results by type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use dns_lookup instead), but the 'all major DNS record types' phrasing provides enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.