Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cargoshipper-mcp

cargoshipper-mcp

by scarr7981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cf_update_dns_record

Update an existing CloudFlare DNS record by specifying zone and record IDs, with optional changes to type, name, content, TTL, proxy, or priority.

Instructions

Update a DNS record

Args: zone_id: CloudFlare zone ID record_id: DNS record ID record_type: DNS record type (if changing) name: Record name (if changing) content: Record content (if changing) ttl: Time to live (if changing) proxied: Proxy status (if changing) priority: Priority for MX records (if changing)

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": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "cf_update_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zone_idYes
record_idYes
record_typeNo
nameNo
contentNo
ttlNo
proxiedNo
priorityNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions updating. No disclosure of side effects, propagation details, or requirements (e.g., permissions), which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is concise: one sentence plus a parameter list. However, the parameter list largely mirrors the schema, which could be more efficiently front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema, return values need no explanation. The description covers all parameters but misses overall context like when to update vs. create/delete, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal semantics: e.g., 'if changing' notes for optional parameters. This helps but is sparse; for 8 parameters, more detail would be beneficial.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Update a DNS record' clearly states the action and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like cf_create_dns_record and cf_delete_dns_record, though it could explicitly contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cf_create_dns_record for new records). The description only lists parameters, lacking usage context.

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