Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ShieldDNS MCP server

ShieldDNS MCP server

Official
by shielddns
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ShieldDNS service status

service_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether both ShieldDNS nodes are available; each node monitors the other every five minutes.

Instructions

Public status of the two ShieldDNS nodes (each node checks the other every 5 minutes).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "service_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — two nodes with mutual 5-minute checks — which tells the agent data may be up to five minutes stale. It does not describe what the status response contains, so with annotations doing much of the work a 3 is fair.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical about the 5-minute mutual check carries real information rather than padding.

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?

For a zero-param read-only tool the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema it never indicates what the status result looks like (per-node state, fields, overall health). That is the one piece an agent still has to discover by calling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters there is no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter chatter.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('Public status of the two ShieldDNS nodes') and its scope, distinguishing it from siblings like check_domain and resolve which perform lookups rather than health reporting. The verb is implicit in 'Public status of', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'status'; an agent must infer that this is the health-check endpoint rather than being told.

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