domain_dns_listLists DNS records for a domain purchased on Lizard, including name, type, value, TTL, and MX priority, to inspect domain configuration.
Read the DNS records of a domain bought on Lizard: name (@ for the domain itself), type, value, TTL and MX priority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A domain from domain_owned_list, e.g. example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by listing the returned record fields (name, type, value, TTL, MX priority) and clarifying that '@' represents the domain itself. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool the added return-field detail is useful.
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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's action and then lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place with no wasted text.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with full parameter schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It enumerates the returned record fields even though no output schema exists. Minor gaps include no mention of error cases (e.g., domain not owned) or whether results are limited.
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 100%, and the domain parameter is documented as 'A domain from domain_owned_list, e.g. example.com'. The description adds only that the domain must be 'bought on Lizard' and that '@' denotes the domain in record names, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents the single parameter.
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 verb and resource: 'Read the DNS records of a domain bought on Lizard.' It also enumerates the record fields returned, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling domain_dns_update, but the read-only framing distinguishes it naturally.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Read the DNS records' and by the domain parameter referencing domain_owned_list, but the description never states when to use this tool versus domain_dns_update or domain_verify. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.