Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

dns_propagation_oracle

Check global DNS propagation consensus, validate DNSSEC, and resolve DNS records across Anycast providers. Perform reverse PTR lookups and inspect provider health.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.0005 USDC on Base & Solana] Master domain dispatcher for Global DNS Propagation & Resolution Oracle.
    Multi-vantage global DNS propagation consensus, DNSSEC validation, and record resolution across Anycast providers.

    Actions:
    - 'propagate': Check multi-vantage consensus across Anycast resolvers. Params: {"domain": "example.com", "record_type": "A"}
    - 'resolve': Detailed lookup with DNSSEC & TXT metadata. Params: {"domain": "example.com", "record_type": "TXT"}
    - 'reverse': Reverse PTR lookup for an IP address. Params: {"ip": "1.1.1.1"}
    - 'status': Inspect anycast provider health and supported record types.

    Args:
        action: Target operation name ('propagate', 'resolve', 'reverse', 'status').
        params: Optional dictionary of action parameters.
        payment_signature: Optional x402 Base USDC transaction hash (defaults to developer mock key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNopropagate
paramsNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the cost, the payment_signature mechanism, the default mock key behavior, and the multi-vantage/DNSSEC nature of the operations. It does not mention rate limits or explicit side effects, but for a read-style DNS oracle this is reasonable coverage.

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 well-organized: cost and purpose are front-loaded, followed by a compact action list and an Args breakdown. Every line earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly: it defines all four actions, their parameter shapes, and the payment signature expectation. It lacks an output/return format description, but since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about return values would have made this fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each action includes concrete parameter examples such as {'domain': 'example.com', 'record_type': 'A'} and {'ip': '1.1.1.1'}, and the Args section explains the top-level action, params, and payment_signature fields. An agent can construct valid calls without further documentation.

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 clearly states the tool is a DNS propagation and resolution oracle and enumerates four distinct actions ('propagate', 'resolve', 'reverse', 'status'), each with a specific purpose. This gives an agent a precise picture of what the tool covers and how it differs from generic DNS-related operations.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use each action, e.g., 'propagate' for multi-vantage consensus, 'resolve' for DNSSEC/TXT metadata, 'reverse' for PTR lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus siblings like whois_lookup or check_address_risk, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools