Skip to main content
Glama
drmogie

Technitium MCP

by drmogie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

technitium_call

Call any Technitium DNS API endpoint to run reads or confirmed changes, covering stats, settings, zones, logs, users, and DNS records.

Instructions

Call any Technitium API endpoint, for example /api/dashboard/stats/get.

Reads run at once. Anything that changes things is NOT run until you set confirm=true, and you must first tell the user what will change and get a clear yes. Risky calls (deleting, restoring, importing, changing ports or listeners, disabling users, password changes) also need confirm_phrase set to the exact endpoint path. Never guess parameters: use technitium_endpoint_help. The token is added automatically. Do not pass a token or a password unless the user asked for a password change. server: which Technitium server, when this tool has several (see technitium_servers). Use "all" for read-only calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo
serverNo
confirmNo
endpointYes
max_charsNo
confirm_phraseNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / server
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Server",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the read-immediate vs write-gated execution model, enumerates the risky operation classes (delete, restore, import, port/listener changes, user disabling, password changes), and states that the auth token is injected automatically. It also warns against passing a token/password unnecessarily, which is exactly the kind of auth context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 core action and the safety gate, and every sentence carries operational meaning. The trailing 'server:' fragment is slightly dangling and the line breaks fragment related ideas, but there is little outright waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the safety model, auth handling, parameter lookup workflow, and multi-server routing. The only real hole is max_chars and the resulting response-size behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it explains endpoint (via the help tool), server (which server, 'all' for read-only), confirm, and confirm_phrase with their semantics. max_chars is never mentioned, so truncation behavior for large responses remains opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call any Technitium API endpoint') and gives a concrete example path, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the eleven specialized siblings — nothing says this is the generic fallback to prefer only when no dedicated tool exists.

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?

Rich conditional guidance: reads execute immediately, mutations require confirm=true plus a user yes, risky operations additionally require confirm_phrase equal to the endpoint path, and unknown parameters must be resolved via technitium_endpoint_help. Missing only an explicit 'use the specialized tools instead of this one when available' exclusion.

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