Retrieve a breakdown of DNS query types (A, AAAA, PTR, SRV) from Pi-hole's long-term database. Use optional from_ts and until_ts timestamps to filter by time.
Breakdown of DNS query types (A, AAAA, PTR, SRV, etc). 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 burden, and it discloses one genuinely useful trait: time-range filtering runs against the long-term database (implying a different, likely slower data source than live stats). It says nothing about permissions, aggregation window, or result volume.
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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Minor flaw: the period after 'etc)' creates an awkward fragment before the parameter note.
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 needn't be described. However, for a queryable analytics tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition omits parameter format and any usage guidance, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that from_ts/until_ts operate against the long-term database, which is meaning beyond the bare 'integer' schema, but it omits units/format (unix epoch?) and default behavior when null.
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?
States the resource precisely — a breakdown of DNS query types with examples (A, AAAA, PTR, SRV). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stats and get_query_log, though it lacks an explicit verb. An agent can tell what it returns.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus get_stats, get_query_log, or the top_* tools. The only contextual hint is that from_ts/until_ts hit the long-term database, which implies time-scoped querying but names no alternative or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.