Update an existing DNS zone in ISPConfig by specifying the zone ID, client ID, and fields to modify. Apply configuration changes directly through the MCP server.
Update an existing DNS zone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Fields to update | |
| zone_id | Yes | Zone ID to update | |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', a generic mutation verb, without explaining permissions, consequences, validation rules, or how existing zone settings are affected. It does not contradict annotations because no annotations exist.
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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a mutation tool with a nested params object and no output schema, so the brevity reflects insufficient content rather than well-structured completeness.
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 has three required parameters, a nested free-form params object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what fields params can contain, what 'updating' a DNS zone means, or what the expected result is, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it 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 the schema already documents the parameter names and basic purposes. The description adds no value to parameter understanding, and the 'params' field remains opaque ('Fields to update'), so the baseline 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('DNS zone'), clearly distinguishing this from creating or deleting a zone. It doesn't specify what parts of the zone can be updated, but it is not tautological or misleading.
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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like dns_zone_add, dns_zone_get, or dns_record_update. The word 'existing' only weakly implies it is for zones already created, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.