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