Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
domain-manager-mcp

domain-manager-mcp

by WangJiyuanYo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_dns

Retrieve DNS records for an allowlisted name, with an optional type filter for A, AAAA, CNAME, or TXT records.

Instructions

Get DNS records for one allowlisted name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_dns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the 'allowlisted' constraint and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not explain what happens for non-allowlisted names, permission requirements, or response behavior. The description gives a basic picture but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation and front-loads the core action and scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It omits the meaning of the 'type' parameter, the nature of the 'allowlisted' constraint, and what a successful response looks like. The description is not complete enough for reliable invocation without guessing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to the 'name' parameter ('one allowlisted name'), but the 'type' parameter is entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know what values are valid or how 'type' affects the request.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('DNS records'), and scope ('one allowlisted name'). This differentiates it well from sibling tools like list_dns (which presumably returns all records) and the create/update/delete mutations.

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 phrase 'one allowlisted name' implies this is for a single, specific name rather than listing all, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_dns or mention any alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than clearly specified.

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