Get a DNS record by its type and ID from ISPConfig. Avoids manually searching through DNS zones by directly returning the exact record details for any supported type.
Get a DNS record by type and ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Record type (a, aaaa, cname, mx, txt, etc.) | |
| record_id | Yes | Record ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get' conveys a read-only lookup, and 'by type and ID' explains the access pattern. However, it does not state response behavior, error conditions for missing records, or any permissions, so the disclosure is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds necessary information, making it concise and easy to parse.
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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description states the core operation and lookup keys but does not mention return value shape or error behavior. It is sufficient for a basic get but lacks details an agent might need for robust 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, describing 'type' as a record type enum and 'record_id' as a number. The description's 'by type and ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the structured schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DNS record'), and identifies the two defining parameters (type and ID). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dns_record_update or dns_record_delete.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names such as dns_zone_get, dns_record_update, and dns_record_delete indicate related operations, but the description does not mention them or give a decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.