get_dns_recordRetrieve a specific DNS record by its Tophost record ID and domain. Use this to fetch details of a single DNS entry for verification or management.
Read one DNS record by its current Tophost record ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| record_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful detail that the record ID is the current Tophost ID, but it does not describe not-found behavior or any other edge cases. This is consistent with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the action, the target, and the identifying mechanism without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with two required parameters, an output schema, and annotation-covered safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly connecting to list_dns_records as the way to obtain the record ID, but that is not required for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain both parameters. It partially does this by clarifying that record_id is the current Tophost record ID, but it leaves the domain parameter completely to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one DNS record'), and the key identifier ('current Tophost record ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_dns_records, which would return multiple records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one DNS record' implies this is for a targeted lookup when the record ID is known, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself leaves the routing implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.