claw-mcp-toolkit

web_dns_lookup

Retrieve DNS records for a domain to analyze configuration, troubleshoot connectivity, or verify domain settings using the claw-mcp-toolkit web utilities module.

Instructions

Look up DNS records for a domain

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "web_dns_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name (e.g. google.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Fails to specify which record types are queried (A, MX, TXT, NS, etc.), timeout behavior, NXDOMAIN handling, or return format. Only confirms it's a read operation through the verb 'Look up'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely terse at 6 words. No redundant content, appropriately front-loaded. However, excessive concision leaves gaps regarding return values and record types; one additional clause would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage. However, given no output schema exists, the description should indicate what record types or format are returned (JSON, raw, specific records). Leaves functional gaps despite structural simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'domain' parameter fully documented (type, description, example). Description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific verb 'Look up' and resource 'DNS records for a domain'. Functionally distinguishes itself from siblings like web_fetch (general HTTP) and web_ssl_check (SSL-specific) through specificity, though does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_fetch or web_ssl_check. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid domain format) or conditions for preferring this over other web tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.