Skip to main content
Glama

drwho.me

by me.drwho
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DNS lookup

dns_lookup
Read-only

Resolve one DNS record type (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA, CAA or SRV) for a name and return the raw answers. Use for a quick, targeted lookup, including on subdomains and names such as _dmarc.example.com; prefer dossier_dns for a domain's main records in one call. Queries Cloudflare DNS-over-HTTPS. Returns a JSON array of {name, type, TTL, data}; an empty array means the name exists but has no record of that type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName to resolve, e.g. example.com or mail.example.com.
typeYesRecord type to query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name or hostname to resolve, e.g. example.com or mail.example.com. FQDN preferred; relative labels are accepted."New value: +"Name to resolve, e.g. example.com or mail.example.com."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"DNS record type to query. Common choices: A (IPv4), AAAA (IPv6), MX (mail), TXT (SPF/DKIM/verification), NS (nameservers), CNAME (alias)."New value: +"Record type to query."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "A",
-  "AAAA",
-  "MX",
-  "TXT",
-  "NS",
-  "CNAME"
-]New value: +[
+  "A",
+  "AAAA",
+  "MX",
+  "TXT",
+  "NS",
+  "CNAME",
+  "SOA",
+  "CAA",
+  "SRV"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name to resolve"New value: +"Domain name or hostname to resolve, e.g. example.com or mail.example.com. FQDN preferred; relative labels are accepted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"DNS record type"New value: +"DNS record type to query. Common choices: A (IPv4), AAAA (IPv6), MX (mail), TXT (SPF/DKIM/verification), NS (nameservers), CNAME (alias)."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations, the description adds meaningful runtime behavior: 'Queries Cloudflare DNS-over-HTTPS' identifies the data source, and the return format is specified with a notable semantic detail — 'an empty array means the name exists but has no record of that type.' It stops short of clarifying error behavior for a nonexistent name (e.g., NXDOMAIN), but the added transparency is substantial.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct job: what it does, when to use it vs. the alternative, the backend, and the return format. There is no filler or repetition of the schema, and the most decision-relevant scoping guidance is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: supported types, valid name forms, backend, return shape, and empty-result semantics. The only notable gap is what happens when the queried name itself does not exist (an error vs. a distinct empty response), but overall the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'name' and 'type' already have explanatory descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds only minor context, such as 'names such as _dmarc.example.com,' which reinforces the schema's example but does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve one DNS record type ... for a name and return the raw answers.' It enumerates every supported record type (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA, CAA, SRV) and explicitly separates itself from the sibling dossier_dns, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The guidance is explicit: 'Use for a quick, targeted lookup, including on subdomains and names such as _dmarc.example.com; prefer dossier_dns for a domain's main records in one call.' This directly tells the agent both the best context for this tool and the alternative to choose instead, which is exactly the decision guidance needed.

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

All drwho.me 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