Add a DNS record to a domain by providing domain ID, record type, subdomain, and value. Supports A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, and more, with MX priority.
Add a DNS record to a domain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Record value (IP, hostname, text) | |
| type | Yes | Record type | |
| record | Yes | Subdomain name (@ for root, www, mail, etc.) | |
| priority | No | Priority (for MX records) | |
| domain_id | Yes | Domain ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Add' and gives no information about side effects, duplicate handling, validation, propagation, permissions, or response behavior.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.
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?
The schema fully covers parameter semantics, but the description alone does not explain when to use this tool or what happens after adding a record. With no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral and contextual gaps.
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 100%, with descriptions for domain_id, type, record, data, and priority, including enum values and a default for priority. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description 'Add a DNS record to a domain' names a specific action and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like adm_dns_records and adm_dns_delete, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adm_dns_records, adm_dns_delete, or adm_domain_zones. There are no criteria, exclusions, or references to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.