manageRewritesManage DNS rewrite entries for a NextDNS profile.
Manage DNS rewrite entries for a NextDNS profile.
Rewrites let you return a custom answer for a hostname. Typical uses:
Point an internal hostname to a private IP.
Block a domain by rewriting it to 0.0.0.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| entry_id | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| profile_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.3v3.1.2v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the effect of a rewrite (custom answer, 0.0.0.0 blocking), which is useful domain context, but says nothing about whether deletes are irreversible, whether add fails on duplicates, whether changes require confirmation, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a short explanatory block. The bullets are slightly redundant with the first sentence but still short and readable; nothing is bloated.
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 no explanation, but this is a multi-operation read/write tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation. The per-operation contract (required fields for add vs delete vs list) is essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly and is missing.
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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The uses hint at a hostname/answer pairing (implying name and content) and entry_id for targeting, but the crucial mapping of which parameters are required for which of the list/add/delete operations is left entirely undocumented.
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 and resource: 'Manage DNS rewrite entries for a NextDNS profile.' The resource (rewrites) is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (lists, profiles, settings, logs, analytics), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.
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 bullets describe what rewrites are used for ('point a hostname to a private IP', 'block a domain'), not when to call this tool instead of manageLists or manageSettings. There is no guidance on which operation to pick or under what conditions to add versus delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.