List all DNS zones managed by FreeIPA with their active status. Use an optional name filter to locate specific zones by substring.
List all DNS zones managed by FreeIPA. Returns zone names and active status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_filter | No | Optional name filter — substring match on the zone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return content (zone names and active status), which is useful, but it does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, scope limits, or failure modes. For a simple list operation this is moderate transparency, not a significant gap.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the return summary is useful without adding noise.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, a clear schema, and no nested objects, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed and what is returned. Minor omissions like pagination or ordering behavior are not critical for basic invocation.
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?
The input schema already documents the single optional name_filter parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, the description adds no extra meaning about filter behavior, such as case sensitivity or wildcard matching. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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 the verb ('List'), the resource ('all DNS zones'), the managed environment ('FreeIPA'), and the return fields ('zone names and active status'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_dns_records, but the resource type is specific enough to make the purpose clear.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dns_records or get_dns_record. The description only implies usage by saying it lists all DNS zones; it does not mention when the optional filter is useful or when another tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.