mcp-infoblox

create_mx_record

Create a DNS MX record in Infoblox to specify mail server priority and delivery routing for a domain.

Instructions

Create a DNS MX (mail exchange) 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>",
      "mail_exchanger": "<mail_exchanger>",
      "preference": "<preference>"
    },
    "name": "create_mx_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	FQDN for the MX record (usually the domain)
`mail_exchanger`	Yes	FQDN of the mail server
`preference`	Yes	MX preference/priority value
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Create', which implies mutation, but provides no details on side effects, idempotency, conflict behavior, or prerequisites.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is concise and effectively structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It includes the destination system (Infoblox) but omits details about return values, errors, or success criteria. Adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'DNS MX (mail exchange) record', and the context 'in Infoblox'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_a_record or create_cname_record, which have different record types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_a_record or create_srv_record. It implies usage for MX records but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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