DNS propagation checker. Compares a DNS record across public resolvers (Google, Cloudflare, Quad9, OpenDNS) to spot propagation lag or split-horizon answers. [$0.03/call]. Params — domain: string; record_type: string (A|AAAA|CNAME|MX|NS|TXT) Example params: {'domain': 'example.com', 'record_type': 'A'}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
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?
The description mentions the cost per call ($0.03/call), which is a behavioral detail, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has other side effects. Given no annotations, this level of disclosure is partial but not fully transparent.
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 succinct, covering purpose, cost, parameters, and an example in a compact format. The information is well-organized and directly relevant, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 description includes the tool's purpose, cost, parameters, and an example, which is enough for basic invocation. However, it does not describe the output format or data structure returned, which would be helpful for agents expecting a particular result. The absence of an output schema increases this need slightly.
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 provides no specific parameter definitions (only a generic 'params' object), so the description carries full weight. It explicitly lists the parameters (domain, record_type) with types and allowed values (A|AAAA|CNAME|MX|NS|TXT), plus a concrete example, making the parameters fully clear.
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 identifies the tool as a DNS propagation checker that compares DNS records across specific public resolvers. It uses the verb 'compares' and specifies the resource (DNS record) and the scope (public resolvers), which distinguishes it from related domain tools.
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 states its intended use ('to spot propagation lag or split-horizon answers'), giving a clear context for when to invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like domain_info, the niche purpose is well-defined and leaves little ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.