Create a new DNS zone on an ISPConfig server by specifying server, client, origin, nameserver, and admin email.
Create a new DNS zone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ns | Yes | Primary nameserver | |
| ttl | No | Default TTL | |
| mbox | Yes | Admin email in DNS format (admin.example.com.) | |
| retry | No | ||
| active | No | y | |
| expire | No | ||
| origin | Yes | Zone origin (e.g. example.com.) | |
| minimum | No | ||
| refresh | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | Client ID (0 for admin) | |
| server_id | Yes | Server 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 carries the burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Create a new DNS zone.' It does not mention potential side effects, duplicate-origin handling, required existing server/client entities, or response behavior.
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 sentence with zero wasted words and the main operation front-loaded. It is concise, though very sparse for a tool with 11 parameters.
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?
The description is not complete enough for a complex 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It omits prerequisites, return value, duplicate behavior, and how this relates to sibling zone/record tools.
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 only 55%, leaving six parameters (ttl, retry, active, expire, minimum, refresh) without semantic descriptions. The tool description does not compensate or add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new DNS zone'), making the operation clear. It differentiates from sibling DNS tools by zone-level scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with dns_record_add or dns_zone_update.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dns_zone_update or dns_record_add. The description only states the action, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.