porkbun-mcp-server

update_name_servers

Replace a domain's nameservers with a new list. Requires domain, new nameservers, and a reason for audit tracking.

Instructions

Replace domain's nameservers. ns is the new list of NS hostnames (typically 2-4). reason is required and tags the audit row (action='NS', new list goes in the payload column).

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>",
      "ns": "<ns>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "update_name_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ns`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`reason`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals destructive behavior ('Replace'), involves an audit trail with action='NS', and specifies that the new list goes in the payload column. It lacks details on permissions or rate limits but is fairly transparent for a mutation.

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 with no fluff. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 sufficiently explains the operation and its audit impact. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist). Given no output schema, some additional completeness would be beneficial.

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?

All three parameters are explained in the description: domain is the target, ns is the list of hostnames (with typical size), and reason is required for audit. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema (0% coverage).

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 'domain's nameservers', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_name_servers' which is a read operation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides context (e.g., typical ns count, reason requirement) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like editing DNS records. The usage is implied rather than guided.

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

Deploy Server