namecheap-api-mcp

set_custom_nameservers

Point a domain to custom nameservers. Disables Namecheap host records, URL and email forwarding while custom nameservers are active.

Instructions

Point a domain at custom nameservers. NOTE: Namecheap host records, URL/email forwarding stop working while custom nameservers are in use.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "nameservers": "<nameservers>"
    },
    "name": "set_custom_nameservers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Full domain name, e.g. example.com
`nameservers`	Yes	Nameserver hostnames, e.g. ['dns1.p01.nsone.net','dns2.p01.nsone.net']

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses an important side effect: Namecheap host records and URL/email forwarding stop working while custom nameservers are in use, which adds valuable behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise with two sentences: one for purpose, one for warning. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It covers the action and a key side effect, though it lacks details like success/failure responses which could be inferred.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The NOTE about side effects indirectly relates to the parameters but doesn't enhance them directly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Point a domain at custom nameservers) and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_default_dns by specifying 'custom' nameservers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_default_dns). The NOTE implies not to use if host records or forwarding are needed, but this is implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server