Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OnlyDNS MCP Server

OnlyDNS MCP Server

Official
by Onlydns
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_dnssec

Retrieve DNSSEC configuration status, NSEC3 parameters, and DS/DNSKEY records for a domain to verify signing and chain-of-trust setup.

Instructions

Get DNSSEC configuration status, NSEC3 parameters, and DS / DNSKEY keys for a domain.

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": {
      "domainName": "<domainName>"
    },
    "name": "get_dnssec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNameYesDomain name (e.g. example.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose the shape of what comes back (NSEC3 parameters, DS and DNSKEY keys), but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the call fails or returns an empty/disabled status when DNSSEC is off, or any rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the enumerated content follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned data (status, NSEC3, DS/DNSKEY) is exactly the compensation needed. It is only incomplete on edge-case behavior — what happens when DNSSEC is not enabled on the domain.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting domainName and an example format. The description's phrase 'for a domain' adds no syntax or constraints 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DNSSEC configuration') and enumerates the payload it covers (status, NSEC3 parameters, DS/DNSKEY keys), which makes it clearly the read counterpart to the sibling enable_dnssec/disable_dnssec tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. the domain must exist / be registered in the account), and no explicit contrast with enable_dnssec or disable_dnssec. The read intent is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

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