Replace all DNS records in a zone with a new list. Any records omitted from the list are deleted, so use it only when full zone replacement is intended.
Completely replace ALL DNS records in a zone with a new list of records. Warning: destructive if omitted records are intended to be preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| records | Yes | Complete list of replacement DNS records | |
| domainName | Yes | Domain name (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / records / descriptionPrevious value: -"Full list of DNS records to set for this domain"New value: +"Complete list of replacement DNS records"Input schema / properties / records / items / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Hostname / record name (e.g. \"@\", \"www.example.com\")"New value: +"Record name or subdomain (e.g. \"@\", \"www\")"Input schema / properties / records / items / properties / records / descriptionPrevious value: -"List of record values"New value: +"List of record values (e.g. [\"1.2.3.4\"])"Input schema / properties / records / items / properties / records / minItemsAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / records / items / properties / ttl / defaultAdded value: +300Input schema / properties / records / items / properties / type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Record type (e.g. A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT)"New value: +"Record type (e.g. \"A\", \"CNAME\", \"TXT\")"Input schema / properties / records / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name",
- "type",
- "ttl",
- "records"
-]New value: +[
+ "name",
+ "type",
+ "records"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important trait: this is a full-replacement, destructive mutation that discards unlisted records. It omits auth/permission requirements, reversibility, and return behavior, but the destructive semantics are stated unambiguously.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the risk warning. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers the critical destructive behavior, which is what an agent most needs before calling a full-replacement tool. Minor gaps around permissions and response shape keep it from being fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (domainName, records) are documented in the schema itself, including nested field descriptions. The description adds only the implication that 'records' is the complete replacement list, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Completely replace ALL DNS records in a zone') and pins down the scope with 'ALL', which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_record, update_record and delete_record. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
The warning sentence gives an explicit when-not condition ('destructive if omitted records are intended to be preserved'), which tells the agent when to prefer an additive/partial sibling. It stops short of naming those alternatives (add_record, update_record) explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.