Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-namecheap

mcp-namecheap

by fantomdancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

namecheap_get_dns_hosts

Retrieve all DNS host records for a domain, including A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, NS, SRV, and CAA entries.

Instructions

Get all DNS host records for a domain (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, NS, SRV, CAA).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "namecheap_get_dns_hosts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name (e.g. "example.com")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the operation is a read/get, which is transparent. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., domain must be registered in the account), potential errors, and response format, leaving room for ambiguity about behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, information-dense sentence with the key verb, resource, and record types. No filler or redundancy, front-loaded with the action.

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?

For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what is retrieved. No output schema exists, but 'list of DNS host records' is implied. Missing details about response structure or edge cases, but acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the 'domain' parameter is described with an example. The description adds the list of record types, but doesn't explain parameter nuances beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all DNS host records'), lists the record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, etc.), and clearly targets a domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like namecheap_set_dns_hosts (get vs set) and namecheap_get_nameservers (different resource).

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?

The description implies when to use: to retrieve DNS records for a domain. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but sibling names make the read-only vs update distinction clear. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance, which is a minor gap.

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