Skip to main content
Glama

dns

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Reverse Dns

reverse_dns
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the hostname for an IP address via reverse DNS lookup. Returns the PTR record if available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 address to reverse-lookup (e.g., "8.8.8.8")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYesIPv4 address that was queried
statusYesDNS status code name (NOERROR, NXDOMAIN, etc.)
hostnamesYesList of hostnames found via PTR record
reverse_nameYesReverse DNS name in .in-addr.arpa format
primary_hostnameYesPrimary hostname from first PTR record or null

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "ip": "8.8.8.8"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "hostnames": {
+      "description": "List of hostnames found via PTR record",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ip": {
+      "description": "IPv4 address that was queried",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "primary_hostname": {
+      "description": "Primary hostname from first PTR record or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reverse_name": {
+      "description": "Reverse DNS name in .in-addr.arpa format",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "DNS status code name (NOERROR, NXDOMAIN, etc.)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ip",
+    "reverse_name",
+    "status",
+    "hostnames",
+    "primary_hostname"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "ip": "8.8.8.8"
-  }
-]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "hostnames": {
-      "description": "List of hostnames found via PTR record",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "ip": {
-      "description": "IPv4 address that was queried",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "primary_hostname": {
-      "description": "Primary hostname from first PTR record or null",
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "reverse_name": {
-      "description": "Reverse DNS name in .in-addr.arpa format",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "description": "DNS status code name (NOERROR, NXDOMAIN, etc.)",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "ip",
-    "reverse_name",
-    "status",
-    "hostnames",
-    "primary_hostname"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "hostnames": {
+      "description": "List of hostnames found via PTR record",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ip": {
+      "description": "IPv4 address that was queried",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "primary_hostname": {
+      "description": "Primary hostname from first PTR record or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reverse_name": {
+      "description": "Reverse DNS name in .in-addr.arpa format",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "DNS status code name (NOERROR, NXDOMAIN, etc.)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ip",
+    "reverse_name",
+    "status",
+    "hostnames",
+    "primary_hostname"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "ip": "8.8.8.8"
+  }
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that a PTR record may not exist ('if available'), implying a possible empty or null result. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not explain other edge cases (e.g., invalid IP formats).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then mention the return value. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the core behavior (reverse DNS lookup) and the expected outcome (PTR record if available), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'ip' parameter with type 'string' and an example. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply refers to 'an IP address'. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find the hostname for an IP address via reverse DNS lookup.' This specifies the exact verb ('find') and resource ('hostname for an IP address'), distinguishing it from sibling DNS tools like dns_lookup and dns_lookup_all.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the hostname for an IP address using reverse DNS. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is apparent from the phrasing.

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

All dns toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, creating real ambiguity between two tools. The polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) has overlapping edge-finding purposes that rely on reading long descriptions to separate, and the DNS tools are so few that an agent cannot tell this is a 'dns' server at all.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set mixes at least four naming conventions: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (dns_lookup, validate_claim, discover_tools), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and brand-prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall pattern is incoherent, including stray names like reverse_dns that invert the verb_first convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's name: only 3 of 34 tools (dns_lookup, dns_lookup_all, reverse_dns) relate to DNS. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning), making the toolkit feel like a mislabeled grab-bag rather than a scoped server.

Completeness3/5

Judged against the server's stated 'dns' purpose, coverage is thin: read-only lookups only, with no WHOIS, DNSSEC, zone management, or write operations. Judged against the dominant inferred domain (a data-research/prediction-market platform), the surface is quite complete — query, grounded verification, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, and feedback all exist — though there is no tool to directly read a pipeworx:// citation URI.

Resources