nextdns-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v3.1.10
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation: profiles, lists, rewrites, logs, analytics query, and analytics plotting. No two tools have overlapping purposes; the domain boundaries are clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase: manageProfiles, manageLists, manageRewrites, manageLogs, queryAnalytics, plotAnalytics. No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a DNS management service. Each tool covers a core functional area without being too few or too many, and the operations within each tool are comprehensive.
Completeness4/5
The set covers profile CRUD, list management, rewrites, logs, and analytics. A minor gap is the inability to modify profile settings beyond renaming, but core workflows are supported.
Average 4.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return type (PNG ImageContent or error), and mentions error condition. Lacks details on auth, rate limits, or performance but is adequate for basic transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, supported metrics, time formats, examples, and return type. It is moderately concise; examples add length but improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high parameter count (9), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers key aspects but ignores many parameters and doesn't describe chart content or relationship to sibling `queryAnalytics`.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring description to explain parameters. It covers `metric` and `time` formats (from_time), and provides examples. However, it does not explain 7 other parameters (limit, interval, etc.), leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it generates a PNG line chart for NextDNS analytics time-series, specifying action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling `queryAnalytics` but implicitly distinguishes by mentioning chart output vs raw data.
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?
Describes when to use (visualize query trends), notes prerequisite (recent query history), and lists supported metrics. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but provides examples for clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a dependency on a NextDNS profile and the DNS-over-HTTPS protocol, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, making it appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description omits usage guidance and some behavioral context, making it minimally complete but not richly helpful for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool performs a DNS-over-HTTPS lookup, with the specific resource (NextDNS profile) mentioned. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools that manage profiles, settings, lists, or analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for DNS lookups but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any exclusions or alternative recommendations, though the sibling tool set makes the intended use reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: clear is destructive, raw bypasses filtering, from_time/to_time ignored by download. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the output schema likely covers return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for operations, time values, and examples. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the examples repeat the tool name unnecessarily.
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 multi-operation tool with an output schema, the description gives sufficient context for core behaviors and parameters. However, missing explanation for user/device and no mention of output format (though schema exists) keep it from a 5.
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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It covers operation, profile_id, limit, raw, from_time/to_time well, but omits user and device. This partial coverage leaves some parameters undocumented.
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 tool manages query logs for a NextDNS profile and lists three distinct operations (get, clear, download). It explicitly identifies the resource and actions, distinguishing it from siblings like dohLookup or manageLists.
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 provides context for each operation (e.g., get with limit, raw; clear deletes all; download with ignored time parameters). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like manageSettings, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It details that add creates, list shows existing, delete removes, and dependencies on entry_id from list. This is transparent for a CRUD operation, but lacks info on permissions or rate limits. Score 4.
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?
Description is well-structured, concise, and front-loaded with purpose. Examples are efficient. Score 5.
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?
With output schema present, description need not explain return values. It covers operations and parameter requirements. It is complete for managing rewrites, given sibling tools context. Score 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates by explaining the operation enum and required params for each operation with examples. It clarifies that name and content are needed for add, entry_id for delete. Score 4.
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 tool manages DNS rewrite entries, distinguishes from sibling tools (manageProfiles, etc.) by focusing on rewrites. Provides specific verb and resource (manage rewrites) and explains typical use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description explains the operations and examples, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over siblings. Implicitly, it's for rewrites, but lacks 'when not to use' guidance. Score 3 because some guidance is provided through examples but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes operations as CRUD but lacks details on side effects (e.g., that delete is irreversible) or permission requirements. Adequate but could be more explicit about destructive actions.
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?
Well-structured with overview, operations list, and examples. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple operations, 3 params, 0% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description fully covers how to use each operation, links to other tools, and provides examples. Complete and self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter (name for create/update, profile_id for get/update/delete) and the operation enum. Adds meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'rename a profile' for update). Good but could clarify that profile_id comes from list operation.
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?
Description clearly states it manages NextDNS profiles, enumerates five operations (list, create, get, update, delete), and explains that other tools require a profile_id from this tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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?
Provides explicit context for each operation including required parameters (name for create/update, profile_id for get/update/delete). Indicates that other tools depend on this one for profile_id. Does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but gives clear direction per sub-operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits like time format flexibility and the series restriction, but could mention read-only nature and lack of destructive 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with bullet points and examples, front-loaded with purpose. Slightly lengthy but each part adds value.
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?
Given the complexity (15 params, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context for typical use cases, though some parameters are left unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description covers many key parameters (metrics, series, time, filters) adding meaning beyond schema. Some parameters like limit, interval remain undocumented.
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 'Query NextDNS analytics metrics' and lists numerous specific metrics, making the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from siblings like plotAnalytics, dohLookup, etc.
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?
Provides clear context through examples and notes like 'series=true is not supported when metric="domains"', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description clearly explains the effect of each operation (get, add, remove, update, replace) and notes that update is only supported for specific list types. Could be improved by mentioning idempotency or error handling.
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?
Well-structured with bullet points and examples. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists types, operations, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 6 parameters and multiple operations/list types, the description is comprehensive. It covers all operations, provides concrete examples, and notes constraints. An output schema exists but isn't needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including format for entry and entries, and providing concrete examples. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it manages allow/deny/block lists for NextDNS profiles, listing all list types and operations. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like manageProfiles and manageRewrites.
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?
Provides detailed operations, supported list types for update, and examples for each operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings or when not to use it for certain scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operations, the requirement for a settings payload on update, the ability to send only specific fields to change (implying partial updates), and the accepted formats for settings (dict or JSON string). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a settings tool, the key behaviors are covered.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for categories and operations, followed by practical examples. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, with every sentence providing valuable information and no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all categories, operations, and usage nuances (e.g., partial updates), and provides examples that demonstrate correct invocation. It fully prepares an agent to use the tool effectively without needing to consult external resources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains each category enums with examples (e.g., privacy includes disguised-tracker blocking), clarifies the operation enums, and details the settings argument as a Python dict or JSON string with instructions to use get first for update. The examples also illustrate how to pass profile_id and settings. This richly compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 tool manages a settings category for a NextDNS profile, then enumerates the specific categories and operations (get/update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on settings categories rather than profiles, lists, or rewrites.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use get vs update, instructing users to call get first to see the current schema before updating. It provides concrete examples for both operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like manageProfiles or manageLists, though the domain is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![nextdns-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmeiser/nextdns-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmeiser/nextdns-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![nextdns-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmeiser/nextdns-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dmeiser/nextdns-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dmeiser/nextdns-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server