Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cloady

Cloady

Official
by Cloady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Create Dns Record

createDnsRecord
Destructive

Add DNS records such as A, CNAME, MX, or TXT to a Cloady domain or app address so services and domain verifications resolve correctly.

Instructions

Adds a record to a domain registered through Cloady in this workspace, or under an application's cloady.io address. On a registered domain, A, AAAA, ALIAS and CNAME records on the domain itself and on * are Cloady's. Under an address, records go on a name below it, like mail or _verify, and ALIAS, CAA and NS aren't allowed; the first one also gives the address itself a CNAME to Cloady, because a name with records below it no longer matches the wildcard. Records reach the internet within the TTL; a record the registrar refuses, such as a CNAME beside other records on the same name, answers 400 with its reason. Needs the developer role.

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": {
      "workspaceSlug": "<workspaceSlug>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "createDnsRecord"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
requestBodyNoThe JSON request body.
workspaceSlugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the supplied annotations (destructive, open-world write), it discloses propagation timing within the TTL, a surprising side effect (the first record under an app address also creates a CNAME on the address itself), failure semantics (registrar-refused records return 400 with the reason), and the permission requirement (developer role). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by scope rules and then behavior/errors — a sensible order. The middle section is one very dense run-on covering several rules at once, so it is informative but could be split for scannability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating tool with a nested request body and no output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs: valid scopes, legal record types per scope, propagation, side effects, error behavior and required role. Only the shape of the success response is omitted, and no output schema exists to cover it, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description has to compensate. It does add real meaning for `domain` (registered domain vs. app address) and constrains which `type` values are legal per scope, but says nothing about `ttl` defaults, `prio`, or the format of `content` per record type — leaving the nested requestBody largely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — "Adds a record to a domain registered through Cloady in this workspace, or under an application's cloady.io address" — and immediately delineates the two scopes where a record can be created. It never names the sibling tools (updateDnsRecord, deleteDnsRecord), so differentiation comes from the verb 'Adds' rather than explicit routing.

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?

It gives concrete conditions: on a registered domain the A/AAAA/ALIAS/CNAME records on the apex and `*` belong to Cloady, while under an app address records must sit on a name below it and ALIAS, CAA and NS are forbidden. That is clear usage context and an exclusion set, though it stops short of saying when to reach for updateDnsRecord instead of creating a new record.

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