Modify a DNS record by updating only the fields you specify, using its record ID and zone. Apply partial changes to name, type, content, TTL, or proxy status.
Update a DNS record by id (PATCH; only pass fields to change).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ttl | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| zone | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| proxied | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It states the HTTP method (PATCH) and partial-update behavior, which is useful, but omits mutability warnings, error conditions (e.g., invalid id), idempotency, or return behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Appropriate length for a simple tool, though arguably too sparse given the schema gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition is incomplete. An agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics and behavioral traits of a mutation operation, making the definition underpowered for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, so the description must explain meanings. It only mentions 'id' (required) and hints 'fields to change' generically, with no clarification of zone, name, type, ttl, content, or proxied. Nearly no compensation for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Update a DNS record by id'. Distinguishes from siblings like cf_dns_create/delete/list by using 'update' and 'by id'. Slightly generic ('update') but adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Adds 'only pass fields to change' which is a usage hint for partial updates, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs cf_dns_create or how to handle missing fields. Implied partial-update semantics but no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.