lws-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_dns_propagation

Read-only

Verify if a DNS change has propagated by comparing your LWS zone, nameservers, and public resolvers, including how long stale answers may last.

Instructions

Check whether a DNS change is live: what is saved in the LWS zone, what the domain's nameservers answer, and what three public resolvers (Cloudflare, Google, Quad9) answer.

    Public resolvers can keep an old answer until its TTL expires, so they may disagree for a while after a
    change; the answer says how long a stale one can last.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Fully qualified name to look up, e.g. _dmarc.example.fr
`type`	No	Record type to look up	A
`expected`	No	Value you expect to see; by default, what is saved in the LWS zone

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1Oct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Value you expect to see; by default, what is saved in the LWS zone",
+  "title": "Expected"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it discloses that public resolvers may serve stale answers until TTL expiry and that the response reports how long a stale answer can last. It does not detail auth or rate limits, but for a read-only diagnostic this is solid additional context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tightly written sentences with the core comparison front-loaded and the TTL caveat following. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description covers what is compared, why results may disagree, and the TTL interpretation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, type, expected) are already documented with a helpful example ('_dmarc.example.fr') and a default. The description only indirectly references 'expected' via the phrase 'what is saved in the LWS zone', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('check whether a DNS change is live') and enumerates exactly what it compares: the LWS zone, the domain's nameservers, and three named public resolvers. This is precise enough to distinguish it from the sibling read tool get_dns_zone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The framing 'check whether a DNS change is live' clearly implies the post-change verification use case, and the TTL note signals it is meant to explain temporary resolver disagreement. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. get_dns_zone for reading the saved zone), so it stops short of a 5.

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