domain-suite-mcp

by oso95

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

update_dns_record

Update a DNS record by replacing all fields with new values. Requires record ID and full details.

Instructions

Update an existing DNS record. All fields are required (full record replacement, not partial update).

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>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`provider`	No
`id`	Yes	Record ID from list_dns_records
`type`	Yes
`name`	Yes	Subdomain or '@' for root
`content`	Yes	IP address, hostname, or TXT value
`ttl`	No	TTL in seconds; use 1 for Cloudflare Auto
`priority`	No	Required for MX and SRV records

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses full-replacement behavior but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error states. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences efficiently state purpose and key constraint. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, but could potentially include a brief note on return value or required fields without harm.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only the replacement semantics. It lacks information on prerequisites, error handling, and what the tool returns, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 63%, and the description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how domain, provider, or ttl behave, so it meets baseline without exceeding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing DNS record' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_dns_record and delete_dns_record by noting it's a full replacement, not partial update.

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 states 'All fields are required (full record replacement, not partial update)', which advises the agent to provide all fields. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool or contrast with create or partial update tools, leaving room for confusion.

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