whm_list_dns_zonesList DNS zones configured on a cPanel/WHM server with pagination to audit or manage domain records.
List the DNS zones on this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum items to return. | |
| offset | No | Items to skip. Use next_offset from the previous response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the server-scoping fact; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a zone record contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so no points are lost for verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-optional-parameter list tool with rich annotations this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could say what a zone entry looks like or that results are paginated. The absence of any pointer to whm_get_dns_zone leaves a gap an agent must resolve itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both limit and offset are documented in the schema, including the next_offset hint. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the DNS zones') plus a scope ('on this server'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling whm_get_dns_zone, which an agent must infer is the single-zone detail call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the sibling whm_get_dns_zone as the alternative for inspecting one zone. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.