Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dnsdoctor

DNS Doctor

by dnsdoctor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Check DNS Propagation

check_propagation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a DNS change has propagated globally by reading the exact name and record type from multiple worldwide vantage points, showing agreement or match/mismatch.

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

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: 'observation only,' an unanswered cell is 'unavailable' and NOT negative, and the verdict downgrades to 'unknown' below three vantage points. This tells the agent how to interpret and report results, not just that the call is safe.

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?

Front-loaded with the when-to-use case and the scope, then parameter and interpretation notes, with no filler sentences. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause conveys actionable constraint; minor duplication of schema-covered parameter behavior keeps it from a 5.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it describes the grid, the deterministic verdict, per-cell match/mismatch/unavailable states, and the coverage-downgrade rule. For a multi-vantage network tool this is complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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 schema already documents name, record_type enum, and expected_value semantics. The description largely restates these (exact name, www not stripped, expected_value toggling match/mismatch) rather than adding format or valid-value detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (check whether a DNS change has propagated globally) and immediately gives the scope that separates it from single-vantage siblings like check_record: six vantage points across four continents plus a local resolver. An agent can distinguish this from check_record or get_domain_records without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering user questions ('has my change propagated', 'why does it show in one place and not another') and the precondition (call it after the human publishes a record, since your own resolver is a single vantage point). No sibling is named as the alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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