dns.send_record_txRevalidate indexed ownership and return one HTTPS page where the user reviews and confirms the exact TON DNS record transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| value | No | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| keyName | No | ||
| valueKind | No | ||
| rawCategory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool returns a user confirmation page, implying the transaction is not executed directly. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, though it omits details like link expiration or post-confirmation behavior.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and contains no extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.
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 description covers the primary purpose and the confirmation-page return, but it lacks details about prerequisites, the format of the link, or side effects. With six parameters and no output schema, more information is needed for complete understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the six parameters (domain, kind, value, etc.) but only mentions 'TON DNS record transaction' generically. No explanation of 'kind', 'keyName', or 'rawCategory' is provided, leaving parameter purposes to be inferred.
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 tool's action ('Revalidate indexed ownership and return one HTTPS page') and resource ('TON DNS record transaction'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns.send_name_tx and dns.send_renew_tx by focusing on record transactions.
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 a use case (revalidating ownership before confirming a DNS record transaction) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns.lookup or dns.send_name_tx. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are scoped by clear resource prefixes (auth, dns, sites, storage, subdomains) with specific actions. Some transaction tools share a similar 'send_*_tx' pattern and could be confused, but descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them.
All tools follow a consistent '<domain>.<action>' pattern with snake_case, and transaction tools append '_tx'. The naming is uniform and predictable across all 46 tools.
At 46 tools, the server is heavily overloaded compared to typical MCP scopes. While the broad domain justifies some volume, the sheer number makes agent selection cumbersome and includes many highly specialized entries.
Core domains (sites, storage, subdomains, dns, auth) have robust lifecycle coverage including creation, reads, updates, deletes, and transaction confirmations. Minor gaps exist in payments (single tool) and media (no retrieval/deletion), but these are peripheral.