Fetches DS records for a DNSSEC-enabled domain so you can complete registrar configuration. Use it to retrieve the delegation signer data registrars require.
Fetch DS records for a DNSSEC-enabled domain (needed for registrar configuration)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions a prerequisite ('DNSSEC-enabled domain') but does not state side effects, error behavior, return format, or whether the operation is strictly read-only (though 'Fetch' implies so). This is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves gaps.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, including the purpose clause, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does and why. However, it lacks details about the return format or behavior for non-DNSSEC domains, which would be helpful but not essential given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning about format or constraints, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('DS records'), and clarifies the domain context ('DNSSEC-enabled domain') and purpose ('needed for registrar configuration'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_dns_records (general DNS) and export_dnssec_key (key export).
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when DS records are needed for registrar setup) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The 'needed for registrar configuration' provides practical context, though an explicit alternative reference would strengthen it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.