Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Delx MCP Server

Delx MCP Server

by davidmosiah
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Dns Lookup

util_dns_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, and NS records to verify domain configurations and delivery paths.

Instructions

Resolve A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, and NS records for fast domain and delivery checks. Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol and may expose x402 utility pricing.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "util_dns_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to resolve
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (1-15)
record_typeNoDNS record typeA

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.8

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context about resolving specific record types and mentions potential x402 utility pricing, which goes beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose with specifics, second adds context about pricing. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 simple DNS lookup tool with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, records, and a note on utility pricing. Could mention return format but no output schema exists.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description lists record types (already in enum) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'DNS records' for a domain. It lists six specific record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, NS), distinguishing this tool from siblings like util_rdap_lookup or util_domain_trust_report.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates usage for 'fast domain and delivery checks' and notes that Delx Utilities may have separate pricing. It provides context but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or name alternatives.

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