get_dns_domainFetch a specific DNS zone from HestiaCP for a given user and domain, returning the zone details in JSON or plain format.
Get one DNS zone. Executes verified command v-list-dns-domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| format | No | json |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a minor implementation detail about executing a verified command, but it does not disclose auth requirements, return behavior, or potential side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The second sentence about the verified command is somewhat supplementary but not wasteful. It is compact and readable, though the implementation detail could arguably be omitted.
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?
The tool is simple and has a rich output schema plus comprehensive annotations, but the description lacks explicit routing guidance and parameter context. For an agent unfamiliar with the command, the description alone is sufficient only at a basic level; it does not cover when to prefer list_dns_domains or what format choices imply.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'DNS zone' and does not explain the user, domain, or format parameters beyond what their names and schema defaults suggest. This leaves the agent to infer how parameters map to the underlying command.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one DNS zone.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_dns_domains (all zones) and mutation tools like add_dns_domain or delete_dns_domain. The phrase 'one DNS zone' is precise and actionable.
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?
The description implies use for retrieving a single DNS zone, and the name aligns with sibling get_* tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_dns_domains or other alternatives. Usage context is inferred from wording rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.