Perform DNS lookups to resolve domain names, check records, and troubleshoot connectivity issues using command-line arguments.
DNS lookup utility
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": "shell_dig"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Command arguments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's function as a DNS lookup utility, without detailing what it does (e.g., returns records, resolves IPs), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
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 extremely concise with just three words, 'DNS lookup utility', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the complexity of a DNS lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves network queries and parameterized arguments, more context is needed to ensure proper usage by an AI agent.
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% description coverage, with the 'args' parameter documented as 'Command arguments'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of common arguments or their effects. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 'DNS lookup utility' clearly states the tool's function (DNS lookup) but is vague about the specific action (e.g., querying records, resolving names) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'shell_nslookup' or 'shell_whois', which likely serve similar DNS-related purposes. It provides a general category rather than a specific verb+resource combination.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'shell_nslookup' or 'shell_whois', nor does it mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks any usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.