Configure DNS server settings on a MikroTik router, including DNS servers, DoH, cache size, and query options.
Sets DNS server configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | ||
| servers | Yes | ||
| use_doh | No | ||
| cache_size | No | ||
| doh_server | No | ||
| cache_max_ttl | No | ||
| verify_doh_cert | No | ||
| max_udp_packet_size | No | ||
| allow_remote_requests | No | ||
| max_concurrent_queries | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action 'Sets' without disclosing whether existing DNS settings are replaced, if changes apply immediately, or if specific privileges are required. Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false) and the description adds no additional behavioral context.
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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easily scannable.
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 tool has 10 parameters, sparse annotations, and no usage guidance. The one-line description is inadequate for an agent to understand important nuances like the effect on existing DNS servers, the meaning of DoH settings, or how to choose appropriate parameter combinations.
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?
With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It provides no explanation of what each parameter does, how they interact, or which are required beyond the schema's basic information.
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 specific verb 'Sets' and identifies the resource as 'DNS server configuration'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dns_settings (read-only) and add_dns_static (static entries). However, it could be more explicit about which aspects of DNS server configuration are modified.
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 get_dns_settings or flush_dns_cache. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.