Skip to main content
Glama
dnsdoctor

DNS Doctor

by dnsdoctor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

check_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a DNS change has landed by comparing the record on the domain's own nameservers with two public resolvers, and see if they agree.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks whether a DNS change has landed, wants a DNS record looked up, or wants to verify a record they just published — or whenever answering needs the live value of a record. Check whether a DNS change has landed: reads the record from the domain's OWN nameservers (cache-free) and from two public caching resolvers, and reports whether they agree. kind is one of spf|dmarc|txt|mx|cname|a|aaaa — pass the kind, not a query name: dmarc reads TXT at _dmarc. and spf reads apex TXT, each filtered to the matching record. host prepends a label (txt, cname, a and aaaa only). Empty values mean the record is genuinely absent. When in_sync is false, max_wait_seconds is the largest remaining cached TTL — the wait before those resolvers refresh. This samples two resolvers, so never describe it as worldwide or as propagation coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostNoOptional label to prepend to the domain (e.g. 'mail' to check mail.<domain>) — honored for txt, cname, a and aaaa only; spf, dmarc and mx derive their own query name.
kindYesWhich record to read; the right query is derived from it — 'dmarc' reads TXT at _dmarc.<domain> filtered to v=DMARC1, 'spf' reads the apex TXT filtered to v=spf1, so don't prefix the domain yourself.
domainYesThe domain to check, e.g. example.com. Bare registrable names and subdomains both work; scheme, path or port do not belong here. Unicode names are accepted and normalized to punycode.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"The domain to check, e.g. example.com. Bare registrable names and subdomains both work; scheme, path or port do not belong here. Unicode names are accepted and normalized to punycode."
    • addedInput schema / properties / host / description
      Added value: +"Optional label to prepend to the domain (e.g. 'mail' to check mail.<domain>) — honored for txt, cname, a and aaaa only; spf, dmarc and mx derive their own query name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"Which record to read; the right query is derived from it — 'dmarc' reads TXT at _dmarc.<domain> filtered to v=DMARC1, 'spf' reads the apex TXT filtered to v=spf1, so don't prefix the domain yourself."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it reads from two resolvers, explains the meaning of empty values, describes the in_sync and max_wait_seconds semantics, and cautions against overstating coverage. No contradiction with 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 dense but not wasteful; it front-loads the usage scenario and packs technical details efficiently. It is slightly long but every sentence carries necessary information, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

For a tool with no output schema and a non-trivial parameter model, the description covers everything an agent needs: usage triggers, kind/host semantics, empty-value behavior, sync-wait details, and limitations. It is complete for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable clarification on how 'kind' maps to query names (e.g., dmarc → _dmarc.<domain>) and which kinds honor 'host'. This goes beyond the schema, raising the score to 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's purpose: checking whether a DNS change has landed, looking up records, and verifying published records. It specifies the mechanism (reads from own nameservers and two caching resolvers) and differentiates from siblings by noting it is not worldwide propagation coverage.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use this when the user asks whether a DNS change has landed...') and provides a when-not ('never describe it as worldwide or as propagation coverage'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like check_propagation, but the exclusion hints at it, so usage context is clear.

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