Skip to main content
Glama

nslookup

by io.github.venomseven

dns_record

Look up a specific DNS record type for a domain. Supports 53 record types including A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, SOA, PTR, CAA, SRV, DNSKEY, DS, TLSA, HTTPS, SPF, and more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesDNS record type (e.g. A, MX, TXT, CNAME, SPF, HTTPS, DNSKEY)
domainYesDomain name (or IP address for PTR lookups) to query (e.g. example.com)
serverNoDNS server to query. Default: cloudflare. Use 'authoritative' for the domain's own nameservers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'looks up' records and supports many types, but does not disclose network behavior, read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without important behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with a clear purpose and a list of supported types. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant words or filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return format, error behavior, or how to interpret results. An agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely repeats record types already in the enum. The server parameter is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 tool's function: 'Look up a specific DNS record type for a domain.' It specifies the verb (look up), resource (DNS record type), and scope (for a domain). It also lists many supported record types, distinguishing it from broader DNS tools like dns_lookup.

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?

The usage is implied: use this tool when you need a specific DNS record type. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_health, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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

All nslookup toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have mostly distinct purposes, e.g., dns_lookup vs dns_record vs dns_propagation are different operations. A few overlaps like bimi_check versus bimi_vmc and dns_lookup versus dns_record could cause slight confusion, but descriptions are clear enough.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case with consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., dns_lookup, bimi_check, uptime_check). The my_* prefix for account-specific tools provides a clear sub-pattern. No mixed conventions.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is somewhat high but justified for a DNS/domain monitoring server covering lookups, health checks, security, SSL, RDAP, BIMI, uptime, and account management. Each tool adds distinct value, though a few could be merged.

Completeness4/5

Covers DNS, SSL, security, hosting, BIMI, RDAP, and account monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps: no direct WHOIS (RDAP covers registration) and no DNS record modification tools (read-only focus). Overall well-rounded.

Resources