VPS_createPTRRecordV1Create or update PTR records for VPS IP addresses to set up reverse DNS lookup, ensuring accurate hostname-to-IP mapping.
Create or update a PTR (Pointer) record for a specified virtual machine.
Use this endpoint to configure reverse DNS lookup for VPS IP addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Pointer record domain | |
| ipAddressId | Yes | IP Address ID | |
| virtualMachineId | Yes | Virtual Machine ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2v0.2.1v0.1.40Input schema / properties / domainAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Pointer record domain",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / ipAddressIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "IP Address ID",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "virtualMachineId"
-]New value: +[
+ "virtualMachineId",
+ "ipAddressId",
+ "domain"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the create/update nuance, which is more precise than the annotations alone. It does not disclose overwriting behavior or other side effects, but with annotation coverage this is a minor 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?
The description is only two sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by the use case, making it easy to scan.
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?
For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and use case sufficiently. Annotations provide the write/non-destructive safety profile. A missing note about the response format is minor and does not block correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the domain/IP are for reverse DNS lookup, which slightly clarifies the domain parameter but does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema.
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 states the specific action 'Create or update a PTR (Pointer) record' with a clear resource and scope ('for a specified virtual machine'). It differentiates from the sibling VPS_deletePTRRecordV1 by covering create/update rather than deletion.
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?
Clear context is provided: 'Use this endpoint to configure reverse DNS lookup for VPS IP addresses.' This tells the agent when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.