Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

domain_dns_resolve

Resolves a single public DNS record for a specified domain and record type using Google Public DNS, returning the query result in JSON.

Instructions

Resolve one public DNS record query. Performs one Google Public DNS JSON query. Use domain_dns_record_types to discover supported types.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "domain_dns_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBare public DNS name, including service labels such as _dmarc
typeYesDNS record type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.20

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: the upstream is Google Public DNS's JSON API, and only public names are resolvable (implying internal/private zones fail). It says nothing about failure behavior for NXDOMAIN/NODATA, CNAME chain following, or rate/latency characteristics of the upstream service.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the upstream mechanism, then the redirect to the discovery tool. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what a result looks like (a single record value, multiple values for MX/TXT, empty on NODATA). That return-shape gap and the absence of any error semantics leave it only minimally viable.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters documented, type is a closed enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a pointer to domain_dns_record_types for discovering valid type values, which marginally supplements the enum but adds no format or syntax detail beyond 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Resolve one public DNS record query") and pins the scope to a single record, which distinguishes it from a bulk or enumerating lookup. It also names the companion tool for type discovery, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like domain_subdomains.

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 only routing guidance is "Use domain_dns_record_types to discover supported types," which addresses the type parameter rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusion conditions (e.g., non-public or internal names, or when to prefer a subdomain enumeration tool), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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