List recent DNS changes detected on your monitored domains, each with its DNS Change Review risk assessment (0-100 risk score, severity counts, added/removed/modified record counts), plus the latest risk per monitor. Requires sign-in to your NsLookup.io account (or an API token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum reviews to return (default 10) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses authentication requirements (sign-in or API token) and details the output structure (0-100 risk score, severity counts, added/removed/modified counts, latest risk per monitor). This goes beyond simple 'list' to explain what the agent can expect, though it omits pagination or 'how recent' details.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and output contents, while the second covers authentication. Every phrase adds value and is appropriately sized.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (risk score, counts, per-monitor risk) and the auth requirement. It is complete for a simple list tool with one optional parameter, though it could mention the default limit or scope of 'recent' changes.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single 'limit' parameter with its default, min, and max. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage is appropriate.
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 lists recent DNS changes on monitored domains with risk assessment details. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DNS changes'), and the mention of 'DNS Change Review' implies a connection to the sibling tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from dns_change_review.
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 the tool is for viewing recent DNS changes with risk assessments, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like dns_change_review, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisite steps beyond requiring sign-in.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
