Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

lookup_dns

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up DNS records for any domain via DNS-over-HTTPS. Specify one or multiple record types (A, MX, TXT, DNSSEC, etc.) to get parsed answers with TTL and DNSSEC AD bit; defaults to A.

Instructions

Read-only DNS record lookup via DNS-over-HTTPS. Pass type for a single record type or types for an array; if both omitted, returns A records. Returns parsed answers with TTL, raw rdata, and DNSSEC AD bit. Use for arbitrary record queries; use validate_dnssec for full DNSSEC chain validation, or check_dns_propagation for multi-resolver consensus. No auth, no rate limits beyond upstream resolver.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoSingle DNS record type
typesNoMultiple DNS record types
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • 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
    • removedInput schema / properties / types / items / $ref
      Removed value: -"#/properties/type"
    • addedInput schema / properties / types / items / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "A",
+  "AAAA",
+  "CNAME",
+  "MX",
+  "NS",
+  "TXT",
+  "SOA",
+  "CAA",
+  "SRV",
+  "PTR",
+  "DNSKEY",
+  "DS",
+  "RRSIG",
+  "NSEC",
+  "NSEC3"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / types / items / type
      Added value: +"string"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains default behavior when both type and types are omitted (returns A records), what the response includes (TTL, raw rdata, DNSSEC AD bit), and constraints (no auth, rate limits only from upstream resolver). This complements the readOnly, idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the core purpose, followed by parameter behavior, return type, usage guidance, and constraints. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple DNS lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and operational constraints. It also places the tool within the sibling context, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds important parameter semantics: it distinguishes between `type` (single) and `types` (array) and clarifies the default A record behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which only list the parameters without explaining the relationship or default.

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 does a 'Read-only DNS record lookup via DNS-over-HTTPS,' specifying the verb (lookup), resource (DNS records), and method (DoH). It also distinguishes from siblings by naming validate_dnssec and check_dns_propagation as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use for arbitrary record queries; use validate_dnssec for full DNSSEC chain validation, or check_dns_propagation for multi-resolver consensus.' This clearly states both the intended use and when to choose alternatives, plus notes about auth and rate limits.

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