Look up DNS records for any domain, with optional record type filtering. Each lookup costs $0.01 USDC.
DNS records lookup ($0.01 USDC/call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Record type, e.g. A (default A) | |
| domain | Yes | Domain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via 'lookup' and adds a cost note, but does not mention side effects, return format, network dependency, or any constraints. The minimal wording does not contradict anything but leaves significant behavioral context unstated.
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?
The description is extremely concise, a single sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the cost is appended as a clear note. For a simple tool, this level of brevity earns a solid score.
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?
While the tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what the result looks like, any limitations, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The schema covers parameters, but without usage or output context, an agent may not fully understand the tool's scope.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'domain' and 'type' (including default A). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific action ('DNS records lookup') with a clear resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like x402_whois, the 'DNS' qualifier makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from other lookup tools to a reasonable degree.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets no help in routing between this and the many x402_* sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.