Porkbun MCP Server

edit_dns_record

Update an existing DNS record by its ID, modifying type, content, TTL, or other settings.

Instructions

Modifies an existing DNS record using its ID.

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>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "edit_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ttl`	No	New TTL in seconds (optional).
`name`	No	New subdomain (optional).
`prio`	No	New Priority (for MX/SRV, optional).
`type`	Yes	New record type. Valid types are: A, MX, CNAME, ALIAS, TXT, NS, AAAA, SRV, TLSA, CAA, HTTPS, SVCB.
`domain`	Yes	The domain name.
`content`	Yes	New record content/answer.
`record_id`	Yes	The ID of the record to edit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation on an existing record, but it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the record does not exist.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and key qualifier, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is straightforward, and the description captures the core action. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain return values or conditions for choosing this tool over edit_dns_record_by_name_type, leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, providing complete parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond reiterating the use of record_id, which the schema already documents.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Modifies' and the resource 'DNS record', and specifies the method 'using its ID'. This distinguishes it from create/delete/retrieve tools and from the sibling edit_dns_record_by_name_type tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you have an existing record's ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. It lacks a clear 'use this instead of X' statement, though the sibling tool names suggest an alternative editing method.

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