mcp-freeipa

list_dns_records

Retrieve all DNS records from a FreeIPA zone, including A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, and other types. Specify the zone name to get the full record list, with an optional limit for large zones.

Instructions

List DNS records within a specific zone in FreeIPA. Returns all record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, etc.).

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": {
      "zone": "<zone>"
    },
    "name": "list_dns_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone`	Yes	DNS zone name to query (e.g., 'example.com' or 'example.com.')
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records to return (default 200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The 'List' verb signals a read-only operation, and 'Returns all record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, etc.)' adds concrete behavior about the result scope. It does not discuss pagination or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core action, scope, and return richness without redundancy. There is no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the result covers all record types, but since there is no output schema it could have been more explicit about the return shape or any limit effects. Still, an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents zone (with example format) and limit (with default). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'specific zone', which is the expected baseline value for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('DNS records'), and a clear scope ('within a specific zone in FreeIPA'). It also notes the return scope ('all record types'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_dns_zones and get_dns_record.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'within a specific zone' implies the caller must already have a zone in mind, and the tool's purpose is clear from context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_dns_record or list_dns_zones, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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