Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

generate_dns_fix

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates copy-pasteable DNS records to fix a specific issue such as missing SPF or DNSSEC. Provides proposed records, TTLs, and provider-specific notes without modifying your zone.

Instructions

Generate copy-pasteable DNS record snippets that fix one specific issue (e.g. spf_missing → suggested SPF record). Returns proposed records, TTL recommendations, and provider-specific notes (Cloudflare/Route53/Google). Read-only POST to /ai/fix — the API only suggests; it never modifies the user's zone. Provide domain and issue (enum); pass context from prior scan output for tailored output. Use after explain_issue or scan_domain identifies a problem; use lookup_dns afterwards to verify the user has applied the suggested record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYes
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
contextNoOptional issue context from scan output

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name, e.g. example.com"New value: +"Domain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / maxLength
      Added value: +253
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "no_ipv6",
-  "no_dnssec",
-  "spf_missing",
-  "spf_too_many_lookups",
-  "spf_softfail",
-  "dkim_missing",
-  "dmarc_missing",
-  "dmarc_none",
-  "dmarc_quarantine",
-  "no_caa",
-  "dane_missing"
-]New value: +[
+  "no_a_record",
+  "no_mx_record",
+  "mx_ptr_missing",
+  "mx_fcrdns_missing",
+  "single_ns",
+  "dnssec_invalid",
+  "nsec3_not_compliant",
+  "rrsig_expiring",
+  "ds_digest_weak",
+  "dnskey_algo_weak",
+  "rrsig_ttl_unsafe",
+  "chain_incomplete",
+  "no_ipv6",
+  "no_ipv6_mail",
+  "no_dnssec",
+  "no_spf",
+  "no_dmarc",
+  "weak_dmarc",
+  "no_dkim",
+  "excessive_verification_records",
+  "no_http3",
+  "spf_missing",
+  "spf_too_many_lookups",
+  "spf_softfail",
+  "dkim_missing",
+  "dmarc_missing",
+  "dmarc_none",
+  "dmarc_quarantine",
+  "no_caa",
+  "dane_missing"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states it is a 'read-only POST' that 'never modifies the user's zone,' aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds detail about return content (proposed records, TTL, provider-specific notes) and side-effect-free behavior, going beyond the annotation without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value (purpose, return details, when to use). It is well-structured without redundancy, so it remains efficient despite covering multiple aspects.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema is provided, but the description explains what the tool returns (proposed records, TTL recommendations, provider-specific notes). It also covers the workflow context (after identify problem, before verify). This makes it complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions all three parameters (domain, issue, context) and clarifies that context is 'from prior scan output.' While the schema already describes domain and context, the description adds the interrelationship (context for tailored output) and that issue is an enum; it does not enumerate the enum values but gives an example, which is adequate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to generate copy-pasteable DNS record snippets that fix a specific issue, with an example (spf_missing → suggested SPF record). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like generate_spf or generate_dmarc by focusing on issue-based fixes.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after explain_issue or scan_domain identifies a problem; use lookup_dns afterwards to verify.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool and what to do before and after, satisfying the 'when vs alternatives' criterion.

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