Add a DNS record to an existing zone by specifying the record type, client ID, and parameters. Enables direct management of ISPConfig DNS entries through an AI assistant.
Add a DNS record to a zone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Record type | |
| params | Yes | Record parameters (zone, name, data, ttl, etc.) | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives no information about whether existing records are overwritten, validation behavior, side effects, or required permissions. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target resource effectively.
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?
Given the opaque nested 'params' object and the absence of an output schema or annotations, more context is needed for an agent to invoke this correctly. The description does not explain how to identify the zone, what record fields are required, or what happens after a successful add. These are critical gaps for a tool with this complexity.
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?
The input schema documents the top-level parameters and even provides some meaning for 'params' by listing example record components like zone, name, data, and ttl. However, the nested 'params' object is open-ended, and the description adds no further parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is high at the top level, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action and resource: adding a DNS record to a zone. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like dns_zone_add, dns_record_update, and dns_record_delete, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools such as dns_record_update or dns_zone_add. It also does not mention prerequisites like whether the target zone must already exist. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.