Update existing DNS records in ISPConfig by specifying record type, ID, and client. Modify fields like A, AAAA, CNAME, or MX entries to correct or change DNS settings.
Update a DNS record
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Record type | |
| params | Yes | Fields to update | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID | |
| 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 alone must convey behavioral details. It states the mutation operation but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, how the 'params' object affects existing values, what happens if the record does not exist, or whether any permissions or prerequisites are required. This is a bare statement rather than a behavioral disclosure.
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 redundant content. It conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 mutation tool with four required parameters, a nested 'params' object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to construct the dynamic 'params' object (e.g., which fields are valid for each DNS record type) nor what the API returns. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, so all four top-level parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The 'params' field is described only as 'Fields to update', which is helpful but appears in the schema as well.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a DNS record'. It sufficiently identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like dns_record_add, dns_record_delete, and dns_record_get. However, it could more explicitly state that it modifies an existing record, which would strengthen sibling differentiation.
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 such as dns_record_add or dns_record_delete. The description neither states conditions for use nor mentions any exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.