dns_lookup_allResolve all common DNS record types for any hostname in one lookup, providing complete infrastructure intelligence for OSINT investigations.
Resolve all common record types for a hostname at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral scope of returning all common record types, but it omits extra context such as whether IP addresses are accepted, timeout behavior, or which record categories are included. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning of what the tool does, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.
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?
The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and benefits from rich annotations plus an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The main gap is that 'common record types' is not enumerated, but the output schema can plausibly fill that gap.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The description's explicit use of 'hostname' clarifies the single required host parameter, but it mostly restates the parameter name and gives no format, normalization, or accepted-value details. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the absent schema documentation.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Resolve') on a hostname and scopes it to 'all common record types at once.' This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling dns_lookup tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling. It is clear and not tautological.
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 phrase 'at once' implies using this tool for a comprehensive DNS lookup in one call, but it does not explicitly say when to use dns_lookup instead for a single record type. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.