Dechonet-MCP

Domain Change History

domain_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report what has changed for a domain over time — the security regressions and drift that DechoNet's daily monitoring has recorded across every watch on the domain (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP posture, impersonation exposure, etc.). Use this to answer "what changed on my domain since yesterday/last week?" — a question that requires persistent snapshots and therefore cannot be reconstructed from a single live lookup. It is the first check to run when a domain looked at before comes up again. Two sources: (a) the daily watch timeline if the domain is under DechoNet monitoring, and (b) even without a watch, the difference between the last two stored lookups of each tool — so a second lookup already yields a comparison. The point-in-time tools (security_scan, owasp_check, ssl_check) give the current state instead. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the monitored tools, a newest-first change timeline, lookup-to-lookup changes, and a link to manage monitoring.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain whose recorded change history to fetch (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`changes`	No	Recorded changes, newest first
`watched`	Yes	Whether the domain is under an active daily watch
`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	Where a human can start or manage monitoring
`changeCount`	No	Number of changes recorded
`historyChanges`	No	Lookup-to-lookup changes, newest first
`historyChangeCount`	No	Changes found between the last two stored lookups per tool (no watch needed)

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / historyChangeCount

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Changes found between the last two stored lookups per tool (no watch needed)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / historyChanges

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lookup-to-lookup changes, newest first",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "changedAt": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "endpoint": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "since": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "summary"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedSep 8, 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, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds value on top: it discloses that no API key is required, that it is rate-limited, and that results come from either the daily watch timeline or the diff of the last two stored lookups. That mechanism disclosure explains why the tool behaves differently for watched vs unwatched domains, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

The routing value (when to use, what it is not) is front-loaded across well-formed sentences, and the two-source explanation earns its place. The final sentence enumerating return contents ('monitored tools, newest-first timeline, lookup-to-lookup changes, manage link') partially restates the output schema, which is minor waste in an otherwise efficient description.

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?

For a moderately complex historical-diff tool, the description covers purpose, routing, data sources, auth, rate limits and constraints. With an output schema present and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents the domain input including that scheme and path are stripped. The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — reporting recorded changes for a domain over time — and enumerates the dimensions tracked (SSL grade, headers, DNS, OWASP, impersonation). It explicitly differentiates itself from the point-in-time siblings security_scan, owasp_check, and ssl_check, so an agent can route without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use triggers ('what changed on my domain since yesterday/last week?', 'first check to run when a domain looked at before comes up again') and names the alternative class (point-in-time tools) for the opposite case. It also explains the second-lookup precondition that makes the tool useful without a watch.

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?