dns-mcp

resolve

Resolves DNS records for a hostname, supporting types A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, SOA, SRV, PTR, and ANY.

Instructions

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

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hostname`	Yes
`type`	No		A

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 11, 2026

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

resolveC