Skip to main content
Glama
dnsdoctor

DNS Doctor

by dnsdoctor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

check_propagation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a DNS change has propagated globally. Six vantage points read the record; a verdict shows whether it is visible everywhere or only in some locations.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks whether a DNS change has propagated globally, or why a record shows in one place and not another. Check whether a DNS change has propagated GLOBALLY: six vantage points (five owner-run probes across four continents plus this server's own resolver) each read the same name through several resolvers, and the grid plus a deterministic verdict comes back. Call it after the human publishes a record — you have ONE network vantage point, and a record that resolves for you can still be missing elsewhere. name is the exact name (www. is not stripped, _dmarc.example.com works), record_type is A|AAAA|CNAME|MX|TXT|NS, and the optional expected_value turns each cell into match or mismatch instead of agreement-only. Observation only: no record is ever composed here. A cell that did not answer is unavailable, which is NOT a negative result, and when fewer than three vantage points were reached the verdict downgrades to unknown — report vantage_reached of vantage_total rather than calling a name converged on partial coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe exact DNS name to look up, e.g. example.com, www.example.com or _dmarc.example.com. It is used as given — a leading www. is NOT stripped and underscore labels are kept — so pass the name the record is actually published at, not the registrable domain.
record_typeNoThe record type to read at that exact name (default A). SPF and DMARC records are TXT — pass TXT with the right name rather than expecting a derived query name.A
expected_valueNoOptional value the record should now hold, e.g. '1.2.3.4' or the new DMARC record text. Supply it and each cell is reported as match or mismatch against it; omit it and the check only reports whether the vantage points agree with each other.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by explaining that 'unavailable' is not a negative result, the verdict downgrades to 'unknown' when fewer than three vantage points respond, and to report vantage_reached/vantage_total instead of claiming convergence. This rich behavioral detail is not present in the annotations.

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 long but information-dense and well-structured: usage intent upfront, then operational behavior, then parameter clarifications, then edge-case handling. Some content duplicates the schema, but the extra caveats are meaningful for correct interpretation.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what comes back: a grid, a verdict, per-cell match/mismatch behavior, unavailable handling, and unknown downgrade. It also explains how to avoid misreporting partial coverage. This fully compensates for the missing output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely paraphrases the schema: exact name handling, allowed record types, and expected_value turning cells into match/mismatch. It adds contextual framing but no significant new parameter-level 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a DNS change has propagated GLOBALLY,' with six vantage points and a deterministic verdict. It distinguishes itself from a single-vantage local lookup by explicitly saying the caller has 'ONE network vantage point,' making the tool's scope clear versus sibling tools like check_record.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context: when the user asks about global propagation, why a record shows inconsistently, and after publishing a record. It also provides a when-not: 'Observation only: no record is ever composed here.' It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the 'ONE network vantage point' phrasing clearly contrasts with local lookup tools.

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