Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentsID Guard

AgentsID Guard

Official
by AgentsID-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

network_dns

Resolve DNS records for a domain, including A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, and SOA types. Requires network.read permission.

Instructions

DNS lookup for a domain. Requires network.read permission.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "network_dns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoRecord type (default: A)
domainYesDomain to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the requirement of network.read permission, which is a useful behavioral/auth context. However, it does not disclose additional traits like output format, error behavior, or rate limits. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a necessary permission note. Every word is useful, with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the lookup returns. It does not, and also omits any edge-case behavior. However, for a straightforward DNS lookup with well-described parameters, the description is mostly complete for basic 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 'domain' and 'type' have descriptive text. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a DNS lookup for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling network tools like ping, ports, and traceroute by focusing solely on DNS queries.

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 gives clear context: it is a DNS lookup tool for a given domain. It does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough within the network tool family to guide the agent.

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