Retrieve details for a specific TSIG key by name to inspect DNS authentication credentials.
Get details for a specific TSIG key by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyName | Yes | TSIG key name (e.g. key-12345) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' implies a read, but it says nothing about required permissions, what fields the details contain, or behavior when the key name does not exist.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and selection criterion front-loaded; no wasted words. It is perhaps overly terse rather than padded.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what 'details' comprises or how a missing key is handled, and there are no annotations to fill the gap.
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 keyName parameter is already documented with a format example in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 per the high-coverage rule.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (TSIG key) scoped to a single key selected by name, which contrasts with the sibling list_tsig_keys. However, it never names that sibling or explicitly says it returns one key rather than many.
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 guidance and no alternatives referenced, despite a crowded sibling set (list_tsig_keys, create_tsig_key, configure_domain_tsig). The agent must infer that this is the single-key lookup path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.