mcp-infoblox

create_cname_record

Create a DNS CNAME record by specifying the alias and canonical FQDN, with optional view, TTL, and comment.

Instructions

Create a DNS CNAME record in Infoblox

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "canonical": "<canonical>"
    },
    "name": "create_cname_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Alias FQDN for the CNAME record
`canonical`	Yes	Canonical name (target FQDN)
`view`	No	DNS view
`ttl`	No	TTL in seconds
`comment`	No	Comment for the record

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the creation action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single very short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. It front-loads the purpose effectively but could include more context without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, which are important for a record creation tool.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score for a tool with high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'DNS CNAME record in Infoblox', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_a_record or create_mx_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 description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the purpose is clear, it lacks context on when a CNAME record is appropriate compared to other record types, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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