Manage AWS Route53 DNS records and zones to configure domain routing and resolve DNS queries in cloud infrastructure.
Manage AWS Route53 DNS records and zones
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| zoneId | No | ||
| zoneName | No | ||
| recordName | No | ||
| recordType | No | ||
| recordTtl | No | ||
| recordValue | No | ||
| recordState | No | ||
| comment | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'manages' DNS records and zones, implying both read and write operations, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether deletions are permanent, or what the response format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple mutation actions like create and delete.
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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element ('Manage AWS Route53 DNS records and zones') directly communicates essential information without 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 complex tool with 10 parameters, multiple mutation actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error conditions, return formats, or the scope of operations. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.
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 0% schema description coverage for 10 parameters, the description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'action' values do, what 'recordState' means, or how parameters interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as managing AWS Route53 DNS records and zones, providing specific verbs (manage) and resources (DNS records and zones). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling AWS tools (like aws_ec2, aws_s3) beyond the Route53 service focus, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose aws_route53 over other AWS tools or non-AWS DNS management options, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.