Perform multiple DNS record additions and deletions in one batch request on REG.RU domains.
Perform multiple DNS record operations (add/delete) in a single batch request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | Yes | Array of DNS record actions to perform | |
| domain_name | Yes | Domain name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating DNS tool, and it says nothing about atomicity, partial-failure behavior, rollback, or required permissions. It does not reveal whether the batch is all-or-nothing, which is the single most important trait of a batch mutation. Only the mutation nature is conveyed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the batch scope and the supported action verbs immediately. It is efficient, though it is so short that brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail a batch mutation needs.
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 schema is fully described and there is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a batch write with no annotations, the description omits failure semantics, ordering, and size limits, leaving gaps an agent would want before calling it.
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 description coverage is 100%, including nested item fields (action enum, record_type, content, subdomain, ttl, priority), so the schema already documents the inputs thoroughly. The description adds only the broad notion of 'actions' and no syntax, limits, or per-action detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (batch update) and resource (DNS records) plus the supported operations (add/delete), which cleanly separates it from the single-record siblings regru_add_dns_record and regru_delete_dns_record. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
"in a single batch request" implies the tool is for multiple operations at once, which is enough for an agent to prefer it over single-record calls when batching. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of ordering constraints, and no statement about whether mixing add and delete in one call is expected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.