Dechonet-MCP

DNS Lookup

dns_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, SOA, CAA) for a domain and validate email-related records, including DNSSEC presence and SPF/DMARC syntax, returning severity-rated diagnostics. Use this for a single authoritative answer about one domain. Use dns_propagation instead when you need to compare answers across multiple global resolvers (e.g., right after a change), or email_auth for a full SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability assessment. Read-only; requires no API key or authentication; subject to rate limiting. Returns a text report: status, KPI summary, detected issues, and recommended actions.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Registrable domain or hostname to query, without scheme or path (e.g., 'example.com' or 'mail.example.com'). Do not include 'http://' or a trailing slash.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`receipts`	No	Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / receipts

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tool": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tool",
+      "id",
+      "url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / observation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.",
+  "properties": {
+    "ageMinutes": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "observedAt": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "unknown"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description adds traits not covered there: no API key or authentication required, and rate limiting applies. It also discloses the return shape (status, KPI summary, issues, recommended actions), giving the agent operational context beyond the structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose, record types, sibling routing, and operational traits are all front-loaded in a small number of dense sentences with no filler. It is slightly long, and the return-format sentence overlaps the existing output schema, but every sentence still carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single required parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, record scope, sibling disambiguation, auth/rate-limit posture, and even a redundant-but-harmless return summary.

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 'domain' parameter is already fully documented (format, examples, no scheme/path). The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format that the schema doesn't already carry, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered single parameter is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query DNS records... for a domain') and enumerates the exact record types plus the validation features (DNSSEC presence, SPF/DMARC syntax). It explicitly differentiates itself from dns_propagation and email_auth, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit positive condition ('single authoritative answer about one domain') and two named alternatives with their selecting conditions: dns_propagation for cross-resolver comparison right after a change, email_auth for a full SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability assessment. This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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

All Dechonet-MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?