mcp-infoblox

create_zone

Create a DNS authoritative zone for forward or reverse domains, with optional primary and secondary server assignments.

Instructions

Create a DNS authoritative zone 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": {
      "fqdn": "<fqdn>"
    },
    "name": "create_zone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fqdn`	Yes	Fully qualified domain name for the zone (e.g., example.com or 168.192.in-addr.arpa for reverse)
`view`	No	DNS view
`zone_format`	No	Zone format	FORWARD
`comment`	No	Comment
`grid_primary`	No	Primary DNS server members
`grid_secondaries`	No	Secondary DNS server members
`ns_group`	No	Name server group name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the zone can be overwritten, required permissions, or side effects. The agent receives no insight into what happens beyond the creation action.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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 tool has 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent under-informed for a non-trivial operation.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a DNS authoritative zone in Infoblox. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create records or other objects. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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 alternatives like create_host_record or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.

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