Skip to main content
Glama
martinzachariassen

domeneshop-mcp

by martinzachariassen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Patch DNS record

patch_dns_record
DestructiveIdempotent

Update only some fields of an existing DNS record; any field you omit keeps its stored value. The current record is read first, so partial changes are safe.

Instructions

Change only some fields of an existing DNS record, e.g. just data or ttl. The current record is read first and every field you leave out keeps its stored value. Prefer this over update_dns_record. Returns the stored record.

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
dataNothe 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
hostNothe host/subdomain the record applies to, e.g. 'www' or '@' for the root
portNorequired for SRV: the port the service is found on
typeNothe 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
record_idYesthe DNS record ID to change, from list_dns_records

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the read-merge-write behavior ('current record is read first and every field you leave out keeps its stored value') and the return ('Returns the stored record').

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the partial-update behavior, then the merge semantics, then the sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Signals the return value ('Returns the stored record') even though no output schema exists, and the schema fully documents the 16 parameters. For a partial-update mutation the description is essentially complete, with only the absence of an explicit when-not statement as a minor gap.

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%, so every one of the 16 parameters is already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description only reinforces this with the 'e.g. just data or ttl' example, adding no format or constraint detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change only some fields of an existing DNS record') and pinpoints the partial-update semantics with 'e.g. just data or ttl', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling update_dns_record. An agent can tell patch from update and create without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this over update_dns_record' names the alternative and the condition (partial vs. full change). It does not state when update_dns_record would be the better choice, so the exclusion side is left implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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