domeneshop-mcp

Replace DNS record

update_dns_record

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a Domeneshop DNS record completely: send every field to retain, as omitted fields are dropped and TTL defaults to 3600. For partial edits, use patch_dns_record.

Instructions

Replace an existing DNS record. This overwrites the whole record, so send every field it should keep: any omitted field is dropped, and leaving out ttl resets it to the default 3600 seconds. To change only some fields, use patch_dns_record instead. Returns the stored record.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`alg`	No	required for DS: the DNSSEC signing algorithm number
`tag`	No	required for DS (the key tag of the referenced DNSKEY) and for CAA (the property tag, e.g. issue, issuewild or iodef)
`ttl`	No	time-to-live in seconds, 60-604800, must be a multiple of 60, defaults to 3600
`data`	Yes	the 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
`host`	Yes	the host/subdomain the record applies to, e.g. 'www' or '@' for the root
`port`	No	required for SRV: the port the service is found on
`type`	Yes	the record type
`dtype`	No	required for TLSA: matching type of the hash in data (0 exact match, 1 SHA-256, 2 SHA-512)
`flags`	No	required for CAA: 128 to mark the property critical, otherwise 0
`usage`	No	required for TLSA: certificate usage (0 PKIX-TA, 1 PKIX-EE, 2 DANE-TA, 3 DANE-EE)
`digest`	No	required for DS: digest type of the hash in data (1 SHA-1, 2 SHA-256, 4 SHA-384)
`weight`	No	required for SRV: relative weight among records with the same priority
`priority`	No	required for MX and SRV: preference value, lower is tried first
`selector`	No	required for TLSA: what the hash is taken from (0 full certificate, 1 subject public key)
`domain_id`	Yes	the Domeneshop domain ID, from list_domains
`record_id`	Yes	the DNS record ID to update, from list_dns_records

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, non-readonly and idempotent, but the description adds the operationally critical detail that this is a full overwrite: omitted fields are dropped and a missing ttl silently resets to 3600. That is behavior an agent cannot infer from the hints alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the destructive overwrite semantics, then the alternative, then the return. No filler and every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 16-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: overwrite semantics and the routing rule. Return behavior is stated in one clause, which suffices absent an output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the requirement to send every field that should be kept, and the default-reset consequence of omitting ttl. It stops short of explaining the per-type conditional fields (which the schema covers).

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 and resource ('Replace an existing DNS record') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling patch_dns_record, which handles partial updates. An agent can pick between update/patch/upsert without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-not rule with the alternative named: 'To change only some fields, use patch_dns_record instead.' Combined with the overwrite warning, this routes the agent correctly among the create/patch/upsert/update siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Replace DNS record

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools