Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

InfraNest

by io.infranest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Recent changes to a DNS zone

dns_zone_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

The zone’s record changes from its last 50 operations, newest first, grouped by the operation that made each batch, each with whether it can still be undone or restored to. Every change is here, whoever made it: each batch’s source says where it came from — provider for an edit made directly at the DNS provider and found by a sync, otherwise InfraNest, an automation or a dynamic IP. Also returns a merged timeline and how many days of changes your plan keeps. Changes from every source: each batch's source says which, provider being an edit made directly at the DNS provider. dns_outside_changes lists those still waiting for someone to keep or undo them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>"
    },
    "name": "dns_zone_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zone_idYesThe zone id, from list_dns_zones or the number of a search hit zone:N.
organization_idNoThe organization to read. Leave it out when the token reaches only one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / zone_id / description
      Previous value: -"The zone id, from list_dns_zones."New value: +"The zone id, from list_dns_zones or the number of a search hit zone:N."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral detail: a hard 50-operation cap, newest-first ordering, batch grouping, per-change undo/restore availability, plan-based retention window, and the meaning of the `source` field. The only deduction is the duplicate explanation of `source` and no note on pagination beyond the cap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loads the core behavior well, but the 'source' semantics are explained three times ('each batch's `source` says where it came from', 'each batch's `source` says which', and the closing sentence), which is clear redundancy that dilutes the otherwise tight text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so: grouped batches, merged timeline, and retention-days count. It stops short of describing the exact shape of each batch entry, but an agent has enough to know what it will get.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions zone scoping only implicitly and adds nothing about zone_id format or the organization_id omission rule beyond what the schema says.

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?

Names a specific resource (a zone's record changes) with exact scope: the last 50 operations, newest first, grouped by operation, with undo/restore status. It also distinguishes itself from the dns_outside_changes sibling by contrast.

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?

States that all changes regardless of origin are included and points to dns_outside_changes for the subset still awaiting keep/undo. That gives clear context and one sibling alternative, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over list_dns_records or search_dns for looking at current records.

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

All InfraNest toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources