Add a DNS record to a domain zone by specifying the record type, name, and value. Use this tool to create A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, or other records for a domain.
Add a DNS record to a domain's zone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| value | No | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| comment | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| proxied | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'add' and thereby implies a write, but it discloses nothing about conflicts, overwrite behavior, propagation, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens when a record already exists – a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 filler, exactly no wasted words. It is suitably front-loaded, stating the operation and target immediately, and in concise terms earns its place in the definition.
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?
With 9 parameters, 3 required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is materially incomplete. It does not explain how values map to DNS concepts, the permitted values for `type`, the meaning of `content` versus `value`, whether `proxied` is supported, or what success/error responses look like – so an agent cannot reliably make valid calls.
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 0% for all 9 parameters, and the description contributes no parameter meaning beyond the existence of 'DNS record.' It leaves required parameters (`domain`, `name`, `type`), optional fields (`ttl`, `value`, `content`, `proxied`, etc.), and their mutual relationships completely undocumented; this fails the low-coverage requirement that the description compensate.
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 says 'Add a DNS record to a domain's zone,' which gives a specific verb ('add'), a concrete resource ('DNS record'), and a target location. This distinguishes it from DNS siblings like ecp_dns_list_records and ecp_dns_delete_record, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with them.
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 given on when to use this tool instead of ecp_dns_list_records, ecp_dns_delete_record, or domain-management verbs like ecp_domains_add_subdomain. There is no mention of preconditions, typical workflows, or cases where an alternative should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.