dnsFetches DNS records for a domain, returning configuration details to support security and threat analysis.
Legacy alias for domain.dns (GET /v1/dns). Prefer domain.dns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name. Example: 'example.com'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"Domain name (e.g. example.com)"New value: +"Domain name. Example: 'example.com'."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only legacy status and the REST method GET, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose response behavior, data format, or any deprecation consequences beyond the alias statement.
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, purposeful sentences. The legacy alias and endpoint are front-loaded, and the preferred alternative comes immediately after. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
This is a low-complexity, deprecated simple read tool with a fully documented parameter. The description is complete enough to steer an agent to domain.dns, but it relies entirely on domain.dns's own description for actual behavior and does not mention return data or usage particulars.
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?
The schema fully describes the single domain parameter with min/max length and an example, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, the description also adds no parameter-level guidance, matching the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage.
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 identifies the tool as a legacy alias for domain.dns and states the endpoint GET /v1/dns, but it never explicitly says what the operation does (e.g., resolving or reading DNS records). It points at a sibling rather than defining its own function, so an agent must infer the purpose from context.
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?
"Prefer domain.dns" is an explicit routing instruction: use the non-legacy sibling instead. Combined with "Legacy alias," it clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool and what alternative to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.