List all DNS zones on a Technitium server, or provide a zone name to list its records. Specify a server when multiple are available; use 'all' to cover them.
List DNS zones. Give a zone name to list its records instead.
server: which Technitium server, when this tool has several. "all" works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | No | ||
| server | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / serverAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Server",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the server note explains the special 'all' value, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, result scope, or pagination behavior for a server-spanning query.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated first and the mode switch immediately after. The trailing server note is slightly awkward in phrasing but earns its place by documenting the multi-server case.
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-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers both operating modes and multi-server selection, which is adequate for a two-parameter list tool; only finer detail like pagination or auth is absent.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains the server parameter ('all' works) and the effect of supplying zone, but the zone parameter's exact semantics (default empty = list zones) are only implied rather than stated explicitly, and no format guidance is given.
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+resource ('List DNS zones') and distinguishes its dual-mode behavior by explaining that supplying a zone name switches to listing records. It does not explicitly name the sibling technitium_records, but the alternate resource is clear enough for disambiguation.
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?
Gives concrete mode-selection guidance: call with no zone to list zones, or pass a zone name to list its records instead. It stops short of naming the dedicated sibling tool (technitium_records) as the alternative, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.