porkbun-mcp-server

create_glue

Create glue records to associate custom nameservers with IP addresses, required for domains using private nameservers like ns1.example.com.

Instructions

Create a glue record (host A/AAAA records served by the registrar). Required for custom nameservers like ns1.example.com that point at IPs you control. reason is required; audit row action=GLUE_CREATE.

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>",
      "host": "<host>",
      "ips": "<ips>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "create_glue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ips`	Yes
`host`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`reason`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that an audit row action=GLUE_CREATE is created, but does not discuss side effects, authorization needs, or reversibility. This adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences: first defines action, second provides use case, third adds requirement and audit detail. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and context but lacks parameter details and behavioral completeness beyond audit. Adequate but with gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It implies that 'host' and 'ips' relate to custom nameservers but does not explicitly describe each parameter (domain, host, ips, reason). The requirement for reason is noted, but overall context is insufficient.

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 explicitly states 'Create a glue record' and explains what a glue record is (host A/AAAA records served by the registrar), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_glue or update_glue.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Required for custom nameservers like ns1.example.com that point at IPs you control.' It also mentions that 'reason' is required, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server