get_zone_toolRetrieve Cloudflare zone details by zone ID or domain name to support DNS and configuration management for a specific zone.
Get Cloudflare zone details by ID or name.
Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone_id | No | Zone ID (32-character hex string) | |
| zone_name | No | Zone name (domain like example.com) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / zone_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Zone ID (32-character hex string)"Input schema / properties / zone_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Zone name (domain like example.com)"v0.5.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / zone_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Zone ID (32-character hex string)"Input schema / properties / zone_name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Zone name (domain like example.com)"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the two keys are mutually exclusive, but says nothing about error behavior when neither is given or what the returned detail includes (though an output schema exists).
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 short sentences, the primary purpose front-loaded and the input constraint immediately following. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.
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, and annotations cover the safety profile. The mutual-exclusion rule is stated, but the definition is silent on the no-argument error case, which leaves a small gap for a lookup tool with two optional inputs.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: both params are nullable/optional with no required field, so the 'either/or, not both' XOR constraint is not captured in the schema itself and must come from the description.
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 a specific verb (Get) plus resource (Cloudflare zone details) and the two lookup keys (ID or name). This distinguishes it from list_zones_tool, which returns multiple zones, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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 sentence 'Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both' gives a real mutual-exclusion rule for selecting inputs, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_zones_tool or what happens if neither argument is supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.