tailscale_list_dns_searchpathsList the DNS search paths (search domains) configured for the tailnet. Tailscale REST: GET /tailnet/{tailnet}/dns/searchpaths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds the Tailscale REST endpoint and the tailnet scope, which is useful context but does not go beyond that. There is no contradiction.
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, focused sentence that includes the resource, scope, and underlying REST call. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is listed and which tailnet it applies to. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given the simplicity and available annotations.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The description does mention the REST path with a {tailnet} placeholder, providing some context about the underlying API despite the empty schema.
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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('DNS search paths (search domains)') and scopes it to 'the tailnet'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dns_nameservers and get_dns_preferences.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely describes what the tool does; there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to related DNS/list tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. For example, list/get/delete keys are clearly separated by operation, and DNS-related tools each address a different aspect (preferences, nameservers, searchpaths, split-dns). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the `tailscale_<verb>_<noun>` pattern with consistent vocabulary (list, get, create, delete, set, expire, authorize). The style is uniformly snake_case, making the set predictable.
22 tools is on the higher end but still within a manageable scope for a comprehensive Tailscale API wrapper. Each tool covers a distinct endpoint, and no obvious duplication exists, though the number edges toward heavy.
The server provides strong coverage for devices and auth keys (CRUD plus actions), but DNS preferences, nameservers, search paths, split-DNS, policy file, tailnet settings, and webhooks are read-only. Missing update operations for these tailnet configuration resources are notable gaps for a management tool.