Skip to main content
Glama
hofill
by hofill

add_dns

Add DNS records to domains for A, AAAA, CNAME, or TXT configurations within the RequestRepo MCP server.

Instructions

Add a DNS record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
record_typeYes
valueYes
confirmYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The RequestrepoMCPService.add_dns method - the actual handler implementation that validates the confirm parameter, calls the requestrepo client's add_dns method, and returns the result with the record details.
    def add_dns(
        self,
        *,
        domain: str,
        record_type: DnsRecordType,
        value: str,
        confirm: bool,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        self._require_confirm(confirm, "add_dns")
        updated = self._client().add_dns(domain=domain, record_type=record_type, value=value)
        return {
            "updated": updated,
            "record": {"type": record_type, "domain": domain, "value": value},
        }
  • The @mcp.tool() decorated function that registers the add_dns tool with the MCP server, accepting domain, record_type, value, and confirm parameters and delegating to resolved_service.add_dns().
    def add_dns(
        domain: str,
        record_type: DnsRecordType,
        value: str,
        confirm: bool,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Add a DNS record."""
        return resolved_service.add_dns(
            domain=domain,
            record_type=record_type,
            value=value,
            confirm=confirm,
        )
  • The DnsRecordType Literal type definition that constrains record_type to valid DNS record types: 'A', 'AAAA', 'CNAME', 'TXT'.
    DnsRecordType = Literal["A", "AAAA", "CNAME", "TXT"]
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a DNS record' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose important traits like: whether this requires specific permissions/authentication, if changes are immediate or propagate with delay, potential rate limits, what happens on failure, or if the 'confirm' parameter provides a dry-run mode. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While arguably too brief for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it achieves maximum efficiency within its limited scope.

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's complexity (mutation operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe return values), the description fails to provide necessary context about the operation's behavior, parameter meanings, or integration with sibling DNS tools. For a write operation in a DNS management context, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 0%, so the schema provides only parameter names and types without explanations. The description adds no parameter semantics whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'domain', 'record_type', 'value', or 'confirm' mean in the context of DNS record addition. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap that leaves parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Add a DNS record' clearly states the action (add) and resource (DNS record), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_dns' and 'update_dns' by specifying addition rather than deletion or modification. However, it doesn't specify what kind of DNS record system this operates on (e.g., domain registrar, internal DNS server).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_dns' for checking existing records, 'remove_dns' for deletion, or 'update_dns' for modifications. There's no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for DNS record management.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hofill/RequestRepo-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server