traceWalk the delegation from the root servers down to the authoritative server for a name, like dig +trace, and say in plain steps whether the delegation is healthy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name to walk | |
| type | No | Record type for the final question | A |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool produces a step-by-step health assessment, but it does not disclose potential network dependence, partial results, or failure behavior. This is acceptable but not rich context.
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?
A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('walk the delegation from the root servers down'), gives a helpful analogy, and specifies the expected output. 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?
The definition is sufficiently complete for a read-only trace tool: it names the traversal path, the analogous command, and the output style. Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Without an output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the exact form of the health verdict, but the existing description 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions walking 'for a name', reinforcing the name parameter, but adds no new meaning for the 'type' parameter or any additional format/constraints. The schema already carries the parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('walk') and a precise resource ('delegation from the root servers down to the authoritative server'), and immediately orients the agent with the dig +trace analogy. It also states the outcome ('say in plain steps whether the delegation is healthy'), which distinguishes it from a raw dig or a basic domain check.
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 its use case—tracing and assessing delegation health for a name—but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like dig or check_domain, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'like dig +trace' analogy provides some context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.