cloudflare-mcp

cf_dns_create

Create a DNS record with a zone, type, name, and content. Re-read the records to verify the new entry was added.

Instructions

Create a DNS record. Then re-read with cf_dns_list to verify.

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": {
      "zone": "<zone>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "cf_dns_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ttl`	No	1=auto
`name`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`zone`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`proxied`	No
`priority`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not mention idempotency, what happens when a duplicate record exists, auth/permission requirements, or whether the create is safe to retry - only the implied eventual-consistency hint from 're-read to verify'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler - the core action leads and the verification hint follows. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence is procedural advice rather than definitional content.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage, the definition is too thin to call the tool correctly - notably, nothing explains the required content/type/name semantics or what the create returns. The verification tip is useful but not sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 14%: only ttl ('1=auto') is documented, leaving zone, type, name, content, proxied and priority unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 7-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource - 'Create a DNS record' - which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from cf_dns_update and cf_dns_delete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like cf_dns_list or explain scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete workflow instruction - re-read with cf_dns_list to verify after creating - which names a sibling and an action context. But it gives no guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., use cf_dns_update for existing records) or any prerequisites, so usage is only partially covered.

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

Deploy Server