Skip to main content
Glama

Dechonet-MCP

by com.dechonet

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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesRegistrable 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kpisNoKey metrics as label/value pairs
gradeNoLetter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
scoreNo0-100 score when the tool scores the target
issuesNoDetected problems, severity-rated
statusYesOverall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'
actionsNoRecommended next actions, most important first
summaryNoOne-paragraph interpretation of the result
reportUrlYesHuman-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no API key or authentication required, subject to rate limiting, and returns a text report with status, KPI summary, detected issues, and recommended actions. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the tool's purpose, record types, output format, alternatives, access requirements, and rate-limit caveat are all covered without redundancy. The most critical usage distinction (single authoritative answer) is front-loaded.

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 the tool's single parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, which sibling to choose instead, authentication requirements, output shape, and a caveat. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema fully documents the single 'domain' parameter. The description reinforces the domain concept but adds no new parameter-level syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the specific verb ('Query'), the resource ('DNS records'), and the domain scope ('for a domain'), and specifies record types and diagnostic outputs. It also explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools like dns_propagation and email_auth, making its unique role clear.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('single authoritative answer about one domain') and names specific alternatives with the conditions that select them: dns_propagation for multi-resolver comparison and email_auth for full deliverability assessment. No inference is required.

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

All Dechonet-MCP 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct diagnostic concern: DNS, SSL, HTTP headers, email auth, email headers, ASN, reverse DNS, WHOIS, ports, subnet math, and the caller IP. The overlapping tools (ssl_check vs http_security vs security_scan) are explicitly differentiated by scope and depth, with cross-references that remove ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent noun_verb or noun_noun pattern built around the resource being inspected, such as dns_lookup, ssl_check, port_scan, and whois_lookup. There are no mixed conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is a well-scoped size for a network/domain/security diagnostic server. Each tool covers a distinct diagnostic capability, and the count is substantial enough to feel complete without becoming bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides broad read-only coverage of domain and network diagnostics: DNS, propagation, WHOIS, ASN, reverse DNS, SSL, HTTP security, email authentication, raw email headers, port scanning, subnet calculation, and an aggregate security scan. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose of domain/network/security investigation.

Resources