Add a new DNS zone or domain to your OnlyDNS account by providing the domain name, enabling agents to manage its DNS records and settings.
Create/add a new DNS zone/domain under the OnlyDNS account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domainName | Yes | Domain name to create (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Create/add' implies a write operation, but there is no disclosure of permissions needed, whether the call is reversible, what happens on duplicate domain names, or what the response contains.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, 'Create/add' and 'zone/domain' are mildly redundant synonym pairs, so it is concise without being maximally precise.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the result of the call, error behavior, or operational context beyond 'under the OnlyDNS account,' leaving the agent without enough behavioral context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter (domainName) already has a clear example in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level format, validation, or constraint details beyond 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 supplies a specific verb and resource ('Create/add a new DNS zone/domain') and scopes it to the OnlyDNS account. It is distinct from record-level siblings such as add_record, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the description only states what the tool does. It does not direct the agent to alternatives like add_record or list_domains or mention prerequisites like account ownership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.