Retrieve detailed DNS records for any name within a zone to validate or troubleshoot your FreeIPA-managed DNS infrastructure.
Get detailed DNS information for a specific record name within a zone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Record name relative to the zone (e.g., 'www' for www.example.com, or '@' for the zone apex) | |
| zone | Yes | DNS zone name (e.g., 'example.com') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and it states the scope (zone/record name), but it does not disclose error behavior for nonexistent records, authorization requirements, response shape, or any other operational details.
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. Every word contributes to identifying the verb, the target resource, and the scope.
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?
For a simple two-parameter getter, the description is usable and complete enough to invoke. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it fails to explain what 'detailed DNS information' includes or what happens when the record does not exist, leaving the agent without some operational expectations.
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%, so the schema fully documents both 'zone' and 'name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the operation targets a specific record name within a zone, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and explicitly identifies the resource: detailed DNS information for a specific record name within a zone. It differentiates from sibling list tools by focusing on a single named record, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.
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 wording implies this should be used when the agent already knows both the zone and the specific record name. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_dns_records, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.