F
license-
qualityD
maintenanceProvides comprehensive DNS lookup capabilities including A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA, CNAME, SRV, CAA, DNSSEC records, reverse DNS lookups, and bulk queries for multiple domains or IPs.
Last updated
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
- Repository
- varvararatta/botfactory-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Tool DescriptionsB
Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: health check, listing record types, and DNS resolution. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_dns_types, resolve_dns), though 'health_check' is a compound noun. The inconsistency is minor and readability is not harmed.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well-scoped for a DNS lookup server. Each tool provides essential functionality without unnecessary extras or gaps.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core DNS resolution workflow: check server health, discover supported types, and resolve records. A minor gap is the absence of a reverse lookup tool, but it is not critical for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolshealth_checkBInspect
Server health check.
return format:
dict: A dictionary indicating the health status of the server.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Server health check' without explaining what the check entails (e.g., which services are tested, whether it is read-only, or potential side effects).
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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for return format. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 provides the bare minimum. It lacks details on error conditions, interpretation of the health status, or any prerequisites, making it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return format as a dictionary indicating health status, which goes beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 pair. Although no differentiation from siblings is needed, it is unambiguous and direct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_dns_types or resolve_dns. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses the return format (a dict containing the list) and that it is for resolve_dns, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with no side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and return format, with no wasted words.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns, making it complete for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; baseline score of 4 applies as the description adds no param info, but none is needed.
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 lists supported DNS record types for resolve_dns, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling resolve_dns tool.
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 implies usage as a precursor to resolve_dns to discover available record types, providing adequate context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_dnsCInspect
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| record_type | No | A |
Tool Definition Quality
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It notes the return format (dict) but lacks details on failure modes, edge cases (e.g., invalid domain), or any side effects. Behavior is minimally disclosed.
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?
The description is structured with sections for purpose, parameters, and return format. It is reasonably concise, though could be slightly tighter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks examples, error handling, and details on what the returned dict contains. Minimal completeness.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining 'name' and 'record_type', listing valid record types, and indicating the default. However, it does not specify format constraints or error conditions for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 record types, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools health_check and list_dns_types, though the function is sufficiently distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without context for appropriate usage.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceA comprehensive DNS query server that enables querying all types of DNS records, including A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA, PTR, SRV, CAA, and DNSSEC checks, as well as advanced tools like WHOIS-style lookup and DNS delegation tracing.Last updated1
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables comprehensive DNS operations including lookups for various record types, reverse DNS queries, batch processing, and DNS resolution tracing. Supports multiple DNS servers with configurable caching and robust error handling.Last updated4452MIT
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceProvides DNS over HTTPS (DoH) query capabilities for AI models by querying multiple public DoH servers in parallel and using a consensus algorithm to return the fastest and most reliable DNS resolution results.Last updated