Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OnlyDNS MCP Server

OnlyDNS MCP Server

Official
by Onlydns
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_records

Replace all DNS records in a zone with a new record list; use when you intend to overwrite the zone, as omitted records will be deleted.

Instructions

Completely replace ALL DNS records in a zone with a new list of records. Warning: destructive if omitted records are intended to be preserved.

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>",
      "records": "<records>"
    },
    "name": "set_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordsYesComplete list of replacement DNS records
domainNameYesDomain name (e.g. example.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Record name or subdomain (e.g. \"@\", \"www\")"New value: +"Record name/subdomain. Accepts relative name (e.g. \"testing\", \"www\", \"@\"), domain-qualified name (e.g. \"testing.example.com\"), or full canonical FQDN (e.g. \"testing.example.com.\"). Canonicalization is handled automatically."
  2. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / records / description
      Previous value: -"Full list of DNS records to set for this domain"New value: +"Complete list of replacement DNS records"
    • changedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Hostname / record name (e.g. \"@\", \"www.example.com\")"New value: +"Record name or subdomain (e.g. \"@\", \"www\")"
    • changedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / records / description
      Previous value: -"List of record values"New value: +"List of record values (e.g. [\"1.2.3.4\"])"
    • addedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / records / minItems
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / ttl / default
      Added value: +300
    • changedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Record type (e.g. A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT)"New value: +"Record type (e.g. \"A\", \"CNAME\", \"TXT\")"
    • changedInput schema / properties / records / items / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "type",
-  "ttl",
-  "records"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "type",
+  "records"
+]
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses the destructive, full-replacement semantics and warns about omitted records, which is valuable. However, it omits other important traits such as permission requirements, atomicity, return behavior, and interaction with DNSSEC, leaving gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the key risk but lacks operational context an agent might need: prerequisites (e.g., domain existence, permissions), whether the operation is atomic, and what the response looks like. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail (domainName and the nested records structure). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Completely replace ALL DNS records in a zone with a new list of records.' The use of 'Completely replace ALL' clearly distinguishes this bulk-replacement tool from the incremental siblings like add_record, update_record, and delete_record.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The warning 'destructive if omitted records are intended to be preserved' implies when caution is needed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use update_record to modify a single record' or 'use add_record to append'). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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