ws_dns_zone_getRetrieve the DNS zone configuration for a specific service by providing its identifier, enabling you to inspect the zone's records and settings.
Get the DNS zone attached to a service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Service identifier the zone belongs to. See ws_service_list for the account's services. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic 'Get' action; it doesn't disclose pagination, return shape, or any side effects. Since the annotations carry the burden, a neutral score is appropriate.
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, efficient sentence that states the action and the scoping. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff.
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 simple get operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It identifies the required service identifier and its source. It lacks an explicit distinction from the sibling ws_zone_get, but the service-scoping is a key differentiator. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. Overall, it's complete enough for typical use.
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 'service' parameter with a pointer to ws_service_list, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('DNS zone attached to a service'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling ws_zone_get, but the 'attached to a service' scoping is a meaningful distinction. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to know what it does, though it could name the alternative for completeness.
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 usage context: use this to retrieve a DNS zone associated with a service, rather than a standalone zone. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over ws_zone_get or ws_dns_record_list, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implicit from the wording but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.