Retrieve upstream DNS server stats to see which forwarders handled how many queries, optionally using start and end timestamps from the long-term database.
Upstream DNS server stats (which forwarders served how many queries). from_ts/until_ts use the long-term database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from_ts | No | ||
| until_ts | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / from_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / until_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Stats' implies a safe read and the note that timestamps query the long-term database is a genuine behavioral disclosure, but permissions, safety profile, and pagination/return behavior are left unstated.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by the parameter note. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is slightly redundant with the opening phrase.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter read tool the description is adequate, but the missing timestamp format/units and the absence of routing guidance to sibling stats tools leave gaps.
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 0% and the schema only declares two untyped-ish nullable integers with no descriptions. The description names both parameters and adds the meaningful detail that they are evaluated against the long-term database, but omits unit/format (seconds vs ms) and default behavior, so it only partially compensates.
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 verb+resource: upstream DNS forwarder statistics, with a parenthetical clarifying the exact payload ('which forwarders served how many queries'). This distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_stats. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The note that from_ts/until_ts use the long-term database hints at usage context but does not say when to prefer this tool over get_stats or get_top_clients, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.