vps-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_nameservers

Update nameservers for a domain by providing the domain UUID and primary nameserver. Optionally specify secondary, third, and fourth nameservers.

Instructions

Update the nameservers for a domain.

Args: domain_uuid: The UUID of the domain ns1: Primary nameserver (required) ns2: Secondary nameserver ns3: Third nameserver ns4: Fourth nameserver

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_uuid": "<domain_uuid>",
      "ns1": "<ns1>"
    },
    "name": "update_nameservers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain_uuid`	Yes
`ns1`	Yes
`ns2`	No
`ns3`	No
`ns4`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the action (update) but fails to mention side effects like propagation time, whether it replaces all nameservers, or authorization requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is short, well-structured with an Args block, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. However, given 5 parameters and the potential impact of the operation, the description lacks context on behavior and side effects.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists parameters with roles (Primary, Secondary, etc.) and indicates which are required vs optional, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update the nameservers for a domain.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dns_record or list_domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description implies use for nameserver changes but lacks explicit context for when it is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.