Query DNS records by host and type to retrieve A, TXT, MX, CNAME, NS, or ANY data directly from the system.
Query DNS records natively.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| record_type | No | e.g. A, TXT, MX, CNAME, NS, or ANY |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' indicates a read-only operation and 'natively' hints at system-level DNS resolution, but the description does not disclose default record_type behavior, return format, timeout behavior, or potential failure modes.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded with no filler words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no additional annotations, so the brevity is not fully appropriate.
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 network tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the default record type, what the returned data looks like, or how this tool differs from sibling network tools.
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 description coverage is only 50%, and host has no description in the schema. The description does not mention either parameter or compensate for the missing host semantics; the only parameter guidance comes from record_type's inline example list.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Query DNS records' clearly identifies what the tool does. It conveys more than just the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling network tools like curl or connections.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network/curl or network/ping. The context of DNS records gives some implicit signal, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.