vps-mcp

Official

by vpsdotorg

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

create_dns_zone

Create a new DNS zone for a domain to manage its DNS records through the VPS.org API.

Instructions

Create a new DNS zone for a domain.

Args: domain: The domain name (e.g. "example.com")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "create_dns_zone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but omits any details about effects (e.g., whether it replaces an existing zone), required permissions, rate limits, or return value structure. This lack of transparency hinders safe usage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. It uses a clear format with an 'Args' section. No superfluous text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate description before args).

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides basic completeness. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., domain already having a zone), success/failure indicators, and usage restrictions. For a creation tool, more context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines the 'domain' parameter with a type and example, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Domain' title. However, the explanation is minimal and lacks details like format constraints or default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Create a new DNS zone' and identifies the resource 'for a domain'. The verb 'create' and the resource 'DNS zone' are specific and distinct from siblings like 'create_dns_record' or 'delete_dns_zone'.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools for context. The agent must infer usage from the tool's 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.