Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cloudflare-mcp

cloudflare-mcp

by habib-alqalam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

cf_list_zones

List all Cloudflare zones (domains) with their IDs and status. Use it to retrieve domain identifiers before managing DNS, cache, or zone settings.

Instructions

List all zones (domains) with their ids and status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cf_list_zones"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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. It does disclose the return contents (ids and status), but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or whether the listing is account-scoped, which is a real gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are stated immediately.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more of the contract. Naming ids and status is helpful, but the shape of the response, account scoping, and auth expectations remain unspecified.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics the description could add.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (zones/domains) plus what is returned (ids and status), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. No sibling covers zone listing, so there is no real ambiguity, though the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from the dns/purge tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite note (e.g. requires auth token), and no mention of alternatives. At best the listing use case is implied by the verb; an agent gets no routing help.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools