Skip to main content
Glama
MukundaKatta

dns-mcp

by MukundaKatta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

dns-mcp

npm mcp license

MCP server: resolve DNS records for a hostname. No external deps — uses Node's built-in dns/promises resolver, which respects the host's nameserver configuration.

Tool

resolve

{ "hostname": "example.com", "type": "MX" }

→

{
  "hostname": "example.com",
  "type": "MX",
  "records": [{ "priority": 0, "exchange": "." }]
}

Supported types: A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, SOA, SRV, PTR, ANY. Default is A.

Related MCP server: DNS MCP Server

Configure

{ "mcpServers": { "dns": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@mukundakatta/dns-mcp"] } } }

License

MIT.

Repository Health

This repository includes a dependency-free health check for core documentation, metadata, and CI wiring. Run it locally before publishing changes:

python3 scripts/check_repository_health.py

The same check runs in GitHub Actions on pushes and pull requests.

Available Tools

1 tool
resolveC

Resolve DNS records for a hostname. type: A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, SOA, SRV, PTR, or ANY.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostnameYes
typeNoA

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise, with a single sentence that covers the action and includes a useful list of record types. However, it could be more structured, e.g., separating purpose from parameter details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain the return value or provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not add meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. It lists the type enum but that is already in the schema. No additional semantics for hostname.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'DNS records for a hostname', and enumerates specific record types. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from any potential siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases. The description is purely declarative.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedresolve
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'resolve' is clear and descriptive, and there is no inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

One tool for DNS resolution is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers all major DNS record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, SOA, SRV, PTR, ANY), providing comprehensive resolution capabilities.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCP DNS

    glucn
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol tool that provides DNS querying capabilities for various record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, etc.) through a standardized MCP interface.
    1
    MIT

  • DNS MCP Server

    cenemil
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables comprehensive DNS operations including lookups for various record types, reverse DNS queries, batch processing, and DNS resolution tracing. Supports multiple DNS servers with configurable caching and robust error handling.
    4
    16 npm
    2
    MIT

  • DNS MCP Server

    stanibaj
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A comprehensive DNS query server that enables querying all types of DNS records, including A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA, PTR, SRV, CAA, and DNSSEC checks, as well as advanced tools like WHOIS-style lookup and DNS delegation tracing.
    1
    -