@kodim/mcp-cloudflare-dns

Update DNSSEC Status

update_dnssec_status

Enable or disable DNSSEC for a Cloudflare zone. When enabling, Cloudflare generates keys and provides the DS record for your registrar.

Instructions

Enable or disable DNSSEC for a zone. When enabling, Cloudflare generates the required keys and provides the DS record for your registrar.

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": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_dnssec_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	Set to 'active' to enable or 'disabled' to disable DNSSEC
`zone_id`	Yes	The zone ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect: 'When enabling, Cloudflare generates the required keys and provides the DS record.' This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates a write operation. It does not mention disabling side effects, but provides meaningful transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a valuable behavioral detail. It is concise and every clause contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with two well-documented parameters and readOnlyHint=false, the description captures the main action and a key outcome (DS record). It lacks details on response format or disabling effects, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, including enum values for status. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Enable or disable DNSSEC for a zone.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_dnssec_status. The addition about DS record generation further clarifies the tool's role.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to change DNSSEC status) and the sibling list includes get_dnssec_status for reading. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Deploy Server