Retrieve all DNS protection profiles configured on an account, including examples like Kids, Work, and IoT. Use it to review and select profiles for filtering policies.
List all DNS protection profiles on the account (e.g. Kids, Work, IoT).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose scope ('all ... on the account'), which implies an account-wide, unfiltered read, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, required permissions, or rate limits. For a zero-parameter read-only lister the gap is modest, but it is not fully covered.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and clarifying examples appended. There is no filler, hedging, or redundancy.
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 trivial no-param list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (the set of profiles) and gives examples of what a profile looks like. What is missing is a note on whether results are paginated or how many profiles to expect, which matters slightly more given the absence of an output schema.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste words on non-existent inputs.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DNS protection profiles') plus the scope ('on the account'), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular get_profile sibling. The parenthetical examples (Kids, Work, IoT) add useful domain grounding. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_profile, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 intent to enumerate profiles is implied by 'List all', and an agent can infer this is the discovery step before get_profile. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer get_profile, and no prerequisites or ordering hints among the 15 siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.