Checks DNS records for every domain linked to an app and reports each domain's verification status, so you can confirm correct DNS setup before deployment.
Verify DNS configuration for all domains of an app. Returns per-domain verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | App ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that results are reported per domain, but says nothing about whether the check is synchronous, what happens on partial DNS propagation, or whether any state is written despite the read-like verb — a meaningful gap given readOnlyHint is false.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return behavior relegated to a compact second clause. Nothing needs trimming.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it checks, on what scope, and that it returns per-domain status. It could say more about what the status values mean or how to act on a failing domain, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter (app_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces scope ("all domains of an app") but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 ("Verify DNS configuration for all domains of an app") and scopes it to all domains rather than one. An agent can distinguish it from list_domains or add_domain without opening the schema, though the description never names those siblings explicitly to sharpen the contrast.
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?
Usage is only implied: the natural read is "call this after adding or changing a domain," but the description never says when to invoke it or when another tool (list_domains, add_domain, set_primary_domain) is the better choice. No prerequisites or failure conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.