Retrieve recent DNS query logs to review what was queried, when, and whether it was allowed or blocked. Investigate blocks and filter results by action or profile.
Get recent DNS query logs: what was queried, allowed or blocked, and when. Useful for reviewing activity or investigating a block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return | |
| action | No | Filter by action | |
| profile_id | No | Filter to one profile (omit for all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of a returned record (query, action, timestamp) plus a vague recency scope. However, it never pins down what "recent" means, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how the default limit behaves, which matters for a log-listing tool with no output schema.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return content and use cases. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and usage intent. The one real gap is the undefined "recent" window, which an agent would want when deciding between this and analytics_summary.
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% and every parameter (limit, action, profile_id) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get recent DNS query logs") and enumerates the record contents (what was queried, allowed or blocked, when). It implicitly separates itself from the aggregate-oriented sibling analytics_summary by being entry-level, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.
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?
"Useful for reviewing activity or investigating a block" gives two loose scenarios but no when-not guidance, no mention of analytics_summary as the aggregate alternative, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.