mcp-infoblox

create_txt_record

Add a DNS TXT record to Infoblox with specified FQDN, text content, and optional view, TTL, and comment.

Instructions

Create a DNS TXT 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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "create_txt_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	FQDN for the TXT record
`text`	Yes	Text content of the record
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, failure scenarios, permission requirements, or rate limits. The description is too minimal 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 sentence without unnecessary words, but it is overly brief and lacks structure. It could benefit from a brief usage note or behavioral context.

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 number of parameters (5) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, constraints like existing record checks, or how the tool fits among many sibling DNS record tools.

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 input schema already explains each parameter adequately. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.

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 action (Create), the resource (DNS TXT record), and the system (Infoblox), which distinguishes it from sibling tools for other 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., create_a_record, create_cname_record). The description lacks context for selecting the correct record type.

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