Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

domains_get_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a DNS record by domain ID and record ID to inspect its configuration, type, and value.

Instructions

Domains get record GET /domains/{domainId}/records/{recordId}

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": {
      "domainId": "<domainId>",
      "recordId": "<recordId>"
    },
    "name": "domains_get_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainIdYes
recordIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no word on failure modes for unknown domainId/recordId, no note about what a record contains, no rate-limit or auth context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short lines with no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy. The route is placed second, so the least informative sentence comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should describe the returned record shape and clarify identifier expectations. For a two-required-parameter lookup tool it leaves the agent guessing what comes back and how to handle misses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden, and it only supplies the path template showing domainId and recordId are path segments. It does not explain that recordId may be numeric or string, nor what a domain identifier refers to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name-plus-title text ('Domains get record') merely restates the tool identifier, but the appended HTTP route GET /domains/{domainId}/records/{recordId} does establish that this fetches a single DNS record scoped to a domain. That distinguishes it from list-style siblings only by inference, not explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as domains_get_records_list for listing records or domains_get_record_types for type metadata. The agent must infer selection from names alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools