Validate DNSSEC configuration for a domain by checking DS, DNSKEY, RRSIG, and NSEC/NSEC3 records, then return a chain-of-trust assessment.
Validate DNSSEC configuration — checks DS records, DNSKEY, RRSIG signatures, and NSEC/NSEC3. Returns full chain-of-trust assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires network access, may be rate limited, has latency implications from multi-record resolution, or what happens on unsigned domains. The mention of 'chain-of-trust assessment' hints at scope but provides no operational behavior detail.
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 purpose and followed by the specific checks performed. No filler. Loses a point because it does not address the required input at all, leaving the agent without essential framing.
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?
A validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description covers WHAT is checked but not how results are returned, the meaning of a failed validation, or acceptable inputs. For a tool whose output is a 'chain-of-trust assessment', the absence of any return-format guidance is a meaningful gap.
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?
One parameter (domain) with 0% schema description coverage and no description text explaining it. The schema field has no description, so the definition must compensate but does not mention the parameter's expected format, whether it accepts subdomains, or whether it accepts a list. A baseline 4 does not apply because the single param is entirely undocumented and the description ignores it.
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 (Validate) and resource (DNSSEC configuration), then enumerates exactly what is checked (DS records, DNSKEY, RRSIG, NSEC/NSEC3). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling DNS tools like netintel_dns_lookup, netintel_dns_propagation, and netintel_domain_vet.
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?
Implies usage through the stated purpose (validating DNSSEC specifically), which is enough to distinguish it from the plain DNS lookup sibling. However, it never states when-not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the domain must be registered or have a parent zone), and does not name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.