domain-setup-mcp

domain_plan

Read-only

Build a reviewable per-domain DNS change plan without writing DNS. It merges SPF safely, blocks plans over lookup limits, and protects existing MX, DMARC, and Microsoft values.

Instructions

Build a reviewable diff of DNS changes per domain. Writes nothing to DNS.

Merges into existing SPF (never adds a second record), blocks plans over the 10-lookup limit, never overwrites live MX unless replace_mx=true, never changes an existing DMARC policy, and never guesses Microsoft MX or DKIM values. Per-domain values go in config.per_domain. Returns a plan_id.

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": {
      "domains": "<domains>",
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "domain_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config`	Yes
`domains`	Yes	Domains, e.g. ['getacme.com','tryacme.com']. Max 100.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses several non-obvious behaviors an agent could not otherwise predict: SPF records are merged rather than duplicated, plans exceeding the 10-lookup limit are blocked, live MX is preserved unless replace_mx=true, existing DMARC is never modified, and Microsoft MX/DKIM values are never guessed. It also states the return value (plan_id), which is material given there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the 'writes nothing' safety fact, then the constraints. The constraint list runs together as one long sentence, which is slightly dense, but nearly every clause carries distinct behavioral information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only plan generator with no output schema, the definition covers what the plan does, what it refuses to do, and what it returns. Gaps remain around the plan's lifecycle (expiry, whether a plan_id is single-use) and the shape of the diff, which would matter before handing the id to domain_apply.

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 around 50%, but the description compensates with a crucial routing hint that the nested schema alone does not make obvious: per-domain values belong in config.per_domain. It also restates replace_mx's default-off semantics as part of the MX preservation guarantee. The remaining parameters are adequately described inside the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a reviewable diff of DNS changes per domain') and immediately narrows scope with 'Writes nothing to DNS' plus 'Returns a plan_id.' That combination makes it distinguishable from the mutating sibling (domain_apply) without needing to name it.

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 preview-then-apply workflow is only implied by 'reviewable diff' and 'returns a plan_id'; there is no explicit 'use this before domain_apply' or 'use domain_audit instead to inspect existing records'. Constraints are well stated, but the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server