mcp-namecheap

namecheap_set_dns_hosts

Set DNS host records for a domain, replacing all existing entries. Retrieve current records first and apply the full modified set to avoid data loss.

Instructions

Set DNS host records for a domain. WARNING: This REPLACES all existing records. Always get current records first, modify them, and set the full list back.

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>",
      "hosts": "<hosts>"
    },
    "name": "namecheap_set_dns_hosts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hosts`	Yes	Array of DNS host records to set
`domain`	Yes	Domain name (e.g. "example.com")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that the tool 'REPLACES all existing records,' a critical destructive behavior, and offers a safety procedure. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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?

The description is just two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers a warning and workflow. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler or repetition.

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?

Given the comprehensive schema (all parameters documented with examples and defaults) and the description covering the key behavioral hazard (full replacement), the tool is well contextualized. No output schema exists, but the function's result is predictable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that the hosts array must contain the full list of records (since it replaces all), not just incremental changes. This is a notable value-add, though not a per-parameter explanation.

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 ('Set') and resource ('DNS host records for a domain'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dns_hosts and set_nameservers. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs the user to 'Always get current records first, modify them, and set the full list back,' which provides a clear workflow and implicitly defines when not to use the tool (without first retrieving records). This is strong, actionable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server