Find IP addresses for domains by querying A and AAAA DNS records, returning both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses along with domain representations.
Get the IP addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) for a domain by looking up A and AAAA records. Also returns the punycode and unicode domain representations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to look up IP addresses for (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the primary behavior (A/AAAA lookup and domain representations) but omits potential edge cases like DNS errors, timeouts, or validation of invalid domains.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary function is front-loaded, and the additional detail about punycode/unicode representations is placed second.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the schema fully documenting the parameter, the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., live vs cached data) but is reasonably complete for a DNS lookup tool.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, including an example. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves IPv4 and IPv6 addresses via A and AAAA records for a given domain, and also returns punycode/unicode representations. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like dns_lookup.
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 implies usage when IP addresses are needed, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over DNS-related sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_record. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.