list_tsig_keys
Retrieve all TSIG keys configured for the OnlyDNS account to manage DNS authentication securely.
Instructions
List all TSIG keys configured for the OnlyDNS account.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Retrieve all TSIG keys configured for the OnlyDNS account to manage DNS authentication securely.
List all TSIG keys configured for the OnlyDNS account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / domainNameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional domain name to list TSIG keys specific to that domain.",
- "type": "string"
-}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose permissions, pagination, rate limits, or return format, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place by naming the action, resource, and account scope.
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 simple no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns. It could mention return shape or read-only nature, but the core information is present.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a 4 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?
Provides a specific verb (List) and resource (TSIG keys) with account scope (OnlyDNS account). It implies a contrast with get_tsig_key via 'all' and plural 'keys', but does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling tool.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and resource alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.