Replace existing DNS search paths on your tailnet with the list you specify. Define the search domains used for hostname resolution across your network.
Set the DNS search paths for your tailnet. Replaces all existing search paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| searchPaths | Yes | List of DNS search domains (e.g. ['example.com', 'internal.corp']) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that all existing search paths are replaced. This clarifies the destructive scope of the operation beyond the generic destructiveHint=true annotation, telling the agent this is a full-state overwrite rather than an incremental update.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the essential replacement behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation with complete schema coverage, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and its destructive replacement behavior. It does not mention return values or prerequisites, but the low complexity and existing annotations reduce the need for further detail.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds value by making clear that searchPaths represents the complete desired set, not a delta, since it replaces all existing search paths. This helps the agent understand the semantics of the single required parameter.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Set'), a specific resource ('DNS search paths for your tailnet'), and a key behavioral qualifier ('Replaces all existing search paths'). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like tailscale_get_search_paths and from related setter tools like tailscale_set_nameservers.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tailscale_get_search_paths or tailscale_set_dns_configuration. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or conditions helping an agent choose among related DNS tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.