Dns Lookup Mcp
Server Details
Unlock the power of DNS lookups with our DNS Lookup service using Google DNS-over-HTTPS. Whether
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: health check, listing supported record types, and resolving DNS records. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., health_check, list_dns_types, resolve_dns).
Three tools is ideal for a focused DNS lookup service, covering health check, type listing, and resolution without unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers the core functionality of DNS lookup with common record types. Missing reverse lookup or batch resolution, but minor gaps for a basic service.
Available Tools
3 toolshealth_checkBInspect
Server health check.
return format:
dict: A dictionary indicating the health status of the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions return format but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or require authentication. The return format description is vague.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second explains return format. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Despite having no parameters and a simple function, the description lacks detail about the return value structure. Saying 'a dictionary indicating the health status' is insufficient; an agent may not know how to interpret the result without specifics (e.g., keys like 'status', 'healthy'). With no output schema, the description should compensate.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional explanation needed.
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 'Server health check', which is a specific verb+resource. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools list_dns_types and resolve_dns which are DNS-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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not provide any context about when a health check is appropriate or what benefits it offers over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_dns_typesAInspect
List supported DNS record types for resolve_dns.
return format:
dict: A dictionary containing the list of supported DNS record types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'List supported DNS record types' and returns a dictionary containing the list. This is sufficient for a simple, read-only tool with no side effects or destructive actions. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).
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 with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides the return format. There is no unnecessary information, and the structure 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the action and the return format as a dictionary containing the list of record types. It could potentially mention that the dictionary keys are the record types themselves, but for a trivial list tool, this is adequate.
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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, as there are none. The guideline gives a baseline of 4 for zero parameters, which is appropriate here.
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's purpose: 'List supported DNS record types for resolve_dns'. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'supported DNS record types', and the connection to the sibling tool 'resolve_dns' distinguishes it from other tools like 'health_check' and 'resolve_dns' itself.
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 implies usage context by stating 'for resolve_dns', suggesting it should be used before performing DNS resolution. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_dnsBInspect
Resolve DNS records. record_type: A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS.
params:
name (str): The domain name to resolve.
record_type (str): The type of DNS record to retrieve.
return format:
dict: A dictionary containing the DNS resolution results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| record_type | No | A |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Resolve' (a read operation) but does not disclose error handling, network dependencies, rate limits, or that it is non-destructive.
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 short and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, but the 'params' and 'return format' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema. Could be slightly tighter.
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, so description should detail return format. It says 'dict' but does not specify keys or structure. Lacks error conditions and how to handle multiple records. For a simple tool, it is adequate but incomplete.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing allowed record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS) and explains the role of each parameter beyond schema fields, though still lacks format constraints like case sensitivity.
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 'Resolve DNS records' and lists supported record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS), making the verb+resource explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'health_check' and 'list_dns_types'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclude scenarios where other siblings would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!