porkbun-mcp

by major

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

dnssec_create

Create a DNSSEC record for your domain by specifying key tag, algorithm, digest type, and digest.

Instructions

Create a DNSSEC record.

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>",
      "key_tag": "<key_tag>",
      "algorithm": "<algorithm>",
      "digest_type": "<digest_type>",
      "digest": "<digest>"
    },
    "name": "dnssec_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`digest`	Yes	Digest value
`domain`	Yes	Domain name (e.g., 'example.com')
`key_tag`	Yes	DNSSEC key tag
`algorithm`	Yes	DS data algorithm
`digest_type`	Yes	Digest type

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`digest`	Yes	Digest value
`key_tag`	Yes	Key tag
`algorithm`	Yes	DS data algorithm
`digest_type`	Yes	Digest type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Create a DNSSEC record,' which essentially restates the tool name. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the idempotentHint=false annotation already implies. No information about effects, required permissions, or potential consequences is provided.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence to state the purpose. It wastes no words, though it is somewhat under-specified in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema and five required parameters, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, how this fits into DNSSEC management, or any idempotency details beyond the annotation. The tool is underspecified for an agent to use confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which earns the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a DNSSEC record, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_create (regular DNS records) and dnssec_delete (deleting DNSSEC records), though it could be more specific about what type of DNSSEC record (e.g., DS record).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when DNSSEC creation is appropriate, or how it differs from dns_create. The description offers no contextual usage information.

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