porkbun-mcp-server

update_glue

Replace the IP addresses on an existing glue record for a domain and host. Provide a reason for audit traceability.

Instructions

Replace the IPs on an existing glue record. action=GLUE_UPDATE.

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": "update_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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Replace the IPs', implying mutation, but fails to mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., overwrites IPs), or any rate limiting or idempotency behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence plus a fragment), but it lacks structure. The fragment 'action=GLUE_UPDATE' is redundant and could be omitted. While concise, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given four required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, the effect of replacing IPs (e.g., whether old IPs are removed), or any validation behavior. A more complete description is needed for a CRUD operation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters. Parameters like 'ips', 'host', 'domain', and 'reason' are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their format or constraints.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'glue record', with an additional action identifier 'GLUE_UPDATE'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_glue or delete_glue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_glue, delete_glue), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only gives the action, not context for usage.

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

Deploy Server