zone-mcp

List DNS records

list_dns_records

Read-only

Retrieves DNS records for a zone and optionally filters by record type or name, returning IDs and modification/deletion flags for updates or removals.

Instructions

List DNS records in a zone. Pass type for one record type; omit it to fetch every type (one API request per type, 11 in total, against a limit of 60/min). Record names are FQDNs ('www.example.com'). Each record has an id (for update/delete) and modify / delete flags; records with delete: false are system-managed. TTL is managed by Zone and not exposed by the API.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Only records with this name ('www', 'www.example.com' or '@' for the apex).
`type`	No	Record type: a, aaaa, cname, mx, txt, ns, srv, caa, tlsa, sshfp, or url (Zone's HTTP redirect record).
`zone`	Yes	DNS zone, e.g. 'example.com'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone`	Yes
`records`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: omitting `type` triggers one request per record type, 11 total, against a 60/min limit. It also explains FQDN naming, record `id` usage, `modify`/`delete` flags, system-managed records, and that TTL is not exposed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then supplies only operationally relevant details. Every sentence adds useful information about filtering, rate limits, or record metadata without unnecessary filler.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers filtering behavior, request cost, record identity, system-managed records, and the TTL limitation.

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%, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics for `type` by explaining the per-type request behavior and total request cost, and for `name` by reinforcing that names are FQDNs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List DNS records in a zone.' This clearly distinguishes the read operation from sibling tools such as create_dns_record, update_dns_record, and delete_dns_record.

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?

It explains how the `type` parameter affects fetches and notes the request cost, which is useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.