Check DNS propagation across 10 global resolvers simultaneously, returning each resolver's result, propagation percentage, and divergent flags.
Check DNS propagation across 10 global resolvers simultaneously. Returns what each resolver sees, propagation percentage, and flags divergent resolvers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| record_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and there is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (per-resolver results, propagation percentage, divergence flags) and implies a read-only multi-resolver fan-out, but says nothing about latency, timeouts, rate limits, or what a 'divergent' result means operationally.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return payload. No filler, no restatement of the name, every clause earns its place.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the right thing by summarizing the response, which largely covers the return-value gap. But leaving record_type undefined and never contrasting with netintel_dns_lookup means an agent still has unanswered questions before calling it correctly.
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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Domain' is self-evident, but record_type is never mentioned in the description and no allowed values (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, etc.) are given anywhere, leaving a required dimension of the call undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check DNS propagation') and adds concrete scope ('across 10 global resolvers simultaneously'), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close sibling netintel_dns_lookup, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.
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 implies the use case (propagation verification after a DNS change) but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the adjacent alternative netintel_dns_lookup or netintel_dnssec_validate. Routing between the DNS family of siblings is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.