Skip to main content
Glama
martinzachariassen

domeneshop-mcp

by martinzachariassen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create DNS record

create_dns_record

Create a new DNS record for a Domeneshop domain and return the stored record, including its new ID.

Instructions

Create a new DNS record for a domain. Returns the stored record, including its new ID.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
algNorequired for DS: the DNSSEC signing algorithm number
tagNorequired for DS (the key tag of the referenced DNSKEY) and for CAA (the property tag, e.g. issue, issuewild or iodef)
ttlNotime-to-live in seconds, 60-604800, must be a multiple of 60, defaults to 3600
dataYesthe record's main value: an IP address for A/AAAA, a hostname for ANAME/CNAME/MX/NS/SRV, free text for TXT, the CAA property value, or the hex hash for DS/TLSA
hostYesthe host/subdomain the record applies to, e.g. 'www' or '@' for the root
portNorequired for SRV: the port the service is found on
typeYesthe record type
dtypeNorequired for TLSA: matching type of the hash in data (0 exact match, 1 SHA-256, 2 SHA-512)
flagsNorequired for CAA: 128 to mark the property critical, otherwise 0
usageNorequired for TLSA: certificate usage (0 PKIX-TA, 1 PKIX-EE, 2 DANE-TA, 3 DANE-EE)
digestNorequired for DS: digest type of the hash in data (1 SHA-1, 2 SHA-256, 4 SHA-384)
weightNorequired for SRV: relative weight among records with the same priority
priorityNorequired for MX and SRV: preference value, lower is tried first
selectorNorequired for TLSA: what the hash is taken from (0 full certificate, 1 subject public key)
domain_idYesthe Domeneshop domain ID, from list_domains

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only addition is the return shape ('the stored record, including its new ID'), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it omits conflict/duplicate behavior for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior second. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 15-parameter write tool with heavy type-dependent requirements, the schema carries the parameter burden and annotations carry the safety profile, so the definition is callable. It is thin on the two things structured data cannot supply: how this differs from upsert_dns_record, and what happens on a duplicate host/type.

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 every parameter — including the type-conditional ones (usage/dtype/selector for TLSA, alg/digest for DS, port/weight/priority for SRV) — is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new DNS record for a domain') and adds a return-value clause. It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, upsert_dns_record, leaving the agent to infer the create-vs-upsert distinction from names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The critical routing question for this tool family — create vs upsert_dns_record vs update/patch_dns_record — is left entirely to inference, and nothing is said about what happens if the record already exists.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools