Audit DNSKEY, DS, and RRSIG records to identify expired signatures and weak cryptographic strength.
Inspects and audits DNSKEY, DS, and RRSIG signature expiration and cipher strength.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The target domain to inspect cryptographic records |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspects and audits' reasonably implies a read-only operationhebdomadically, and it adds specifics about what is checked (expiration and cipher strength). However, it does not disclose output/return behavior, how results are reported, or whether it performs any side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every phrase contributes specific information. This is an efficient definition.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only audit, the core invocation details are present and the schema covers the parameter. But with no output schema and no behavioral details about report format or recommendations, an agent does not know what to expect from the call. It is minimally complete but leaves meaningful gaps.
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 100 percent, and the domain parameter is already described as 'the target domain to inspect cryptographic records.' The tool description adds no further parameter meaning such as format constraints, defaults, or edge cases, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspects and audits') and identifies the exact resource types (DNSKEY, DS, RRSIG) plus the audit dimensions (signature expiration, cipher strength). It is clear enough to distinguish this from verify_dnssec_chain, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus verify_dnssec_chainfocused on audit vs verification. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.