Verify DNS resolution by querying a specified name and record type against a MikroTik router or DNS server, returning the resolved IP addresses or records.
Tests a DNS query.
Notes: type: accepted values are A/ipv4, AAAA/ipv6, any, any6
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | A | |
| device | No | ||
| server | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.5Input schema / properties / deviceAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Device"
+}v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the core behavior of performing a DNS query test, and the type-note gives accepted values, but it does not disclose potential network dependency, response behavior, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction exists.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The type note is compact and useful, with no filler. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its length.
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?
While an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description omits essential invocation context: what 'name' represents, the role of 'device' and 'server', and when this tool is preferred. This leaves the definition incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.
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%, so the description must compensate. It documents accepted values for the 'type' parameter, but leaves the required 'name' parameter and the 'device' and 'server' parameters unexplained. An agent cannot confidently infer that 'name' is a domain name or how 'server' and 'device' affect the query.
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 a specific action, 'Tests a DNS query', with a clear resource. This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_dns_settings, flush_dns_cache, or get_dns_cache_statistics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other DNS-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.