ws_zone_getRetrieve DNS zone details for a specific domain by providing the domain name, returning the zone's records and settings.
Get one DNS zone by domain name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Zone domain name, e.g. "example.com". | |
| userId | No | Account id, or the literal "self" for the authenticated account. Defaults to "self". | self |
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'by domain name' selection detail and does not disclose additional behavior such as not-found handling or response shape.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and key selection criterion are all front-loaded and scannable.
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 simple schema and strong annotations make a short description mostly adequate, but the near-identical sibling ws_dns_zone_get creates real ambiguity that this description does not resolve. There is also no output schema and no statement about what the response will contain, though that is partially mitigated by annotations.
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%, so both domain and userId are already fully documented. The description's 'by domain name' phrase merely restates the schema's domain parameter rather than adding new meaning.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get one DNS zone by domain name.' It is specific about the lookup key, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling ws_dns_zone_get, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool instead of alternatives such as ws_dns_zone_get or ws_zone_list. The description implies only that it fetches a single zone by domain, with no mention of prerequisites, fallbacks, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.