Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pihole-mcp

pihole-mcp

by chris2ao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_local_cname_record

Map a hostname to another domain in Pi-hole DNS by adding a local CNAME record, replacing any existing CNAME for that host.

Instructions

Add a local CNAME record (host -> target). Replaces any existing CNAME for the same host.

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": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "add_local_cname_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ttlNo
hostYes
targetYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the key behavior of replacing existing CNAME records for the same host, which adds value beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and key behavior without any superfluous words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and unique replacement feature. Lacks details on constraints and edge cases, but adequate for typical use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description 'host -> target' clarifies the roles of host and target parameters, partially compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, the ttl parameter is not explained.

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 it adds a local CNAME record from host to target, and distinguishes from siblings like add_local_a_record by specifying the record type and the replacement behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_local_a_record or remove_local_cname_record. The replacement behavior is mentioned but not framed as a usage rule.

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