Create a DNS record in a specified zone by providing the zone name and record details like type, TTL, priority, and data. Add A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, or other records to manage DNS.
Create DNS zone record [POST /v1/dns/zones/{zoneName}/records] Create resource record in a zone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| zoneName | Yes | Zone name | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path—nothing about duplicate handling, permission requirements, or what happens when a record with the same name already exists.
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 very short and front-loads the operation name and endpoint. The second sentence is redundant with the first, but there is no padding or wandering prose.
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?
This is a mutation tool with a nested request body and no output schema, yet the description only restates the name and endpoint. It leaves out operational context such as whether the call fails on duplicate records, permission expectations, and how this differs from update_dns_zone_record, which is important for correct invocation.
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 zoneName and all nested body fields including record type, TTL, priority, and data. The description only implicitly indicates that zoneName is a path parameter and otherwise adds no meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
It clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Create DNS zone record') and includes the POST endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_dns_zone_record or create_dns_zone. The second sentence is largely repetitive, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_dns_zone_record or create_dns_zone, and it does not mention prerequisites such as existing zone requirements or duplicate-record behavior. It assumes the agent already knows the DNS API context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.